413 Comments »

Barbara said:
I looked at that shitbag’s website after you first referenced it. What a fucking egomaniac. No wonder he doesn’t believe in God, P.Z. can’t imagine anyone could possibly be greater than he is, and like all “open minded” people he allows no dissent. It’s believe or be silenced in P.Z.’s world, he’s nothing at all like the religionists he bashes. *cough*cough*
I noticed it took two people to hoist that fat ass onto the dinosaur, maybe P.Z.’s ancestor’s riding them caused extinction…he’s a load, Fred Flintstone looks svelte compared to P.Z. It’s such a lovely thing for him to have done, gone to this museum, abused the trust of the people there and then to write scathingly about their beliefs. Whatever you think of their beliefs they did not invite the scorn of this wide-assed loser.
“There are no lies here.” But, P.Z., there ARE poorly researched half-truths, aren’t there? And exaggerations, misstatements of facts…but no lies? Boy, P.Z. really sets the bar low.
Muchly debated. What do you think?   -2
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 3:21 pm
Ha! Trolling the voting? Seriously?
You “intellectual” stupids just blew the lid off the previous record for vote trolling :: set by the Mormons …
http://saltydroid.info/inside-dot-con-secrets/
… such strange bed fellows.
Of course it wasn’t really the Mormons … it was the wrestlers that a Mormon was paying low wages to do boiler room SEO.
If this blog wasn’t a true story … you could never believe it.
[Reply]

Barbara Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 4:43 pm
@SD,
That was really something, yikes! I learned more about wrestling than I wanted to know. My favorite quote was:
“You can’t hate on people for their belief systems … whatever you want to tell yourself to make life more bearable is fine by me.” The Salty Droid
It’s not vote trolling with these tossers, they have a scientific name for it, ““pharyngulating”, all of the cool kids are doing it.
WINNER!! ::   +13
[Reply]

Poop Chute Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 5:10 pm
@SD, So much for their belief in an open discussion of ideas.
WINNER!! ::   +13
[Reply]

sandiseattle Reply:
October 8th, 2011 at 6:35 pm
@Barbara,
well not exactly. Some dissent is allowed, but the privilege is earned. PZ does once in awhile act with out thought and ban a commenter, usually one advocating an unpopular stance on an issue. Yeah been there done that. Sadly there is less science on the blog than when I started reading. :(
  0
[Reply]
# 4 October 2011 at 9:07 pm

Dimitri said:
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
At first I thought it was Paul Myers from Warrior Forum.
LOSER!! ::   -6
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 4th, 2011 at 11:46 pm
@Dimitri ::
… but then it wasn’t … yet the thought seems to have lingered.
[Reply]
# 4 October 2011 at 9:17 pm

hrmmm said:
This is not super-relevant to the Navarro-Dunford Affair, but I’d just like to say that, as a science grad and total agnostic, there is almost nothing more annoying than a self-righteous atheist.
WINNER!! ::   +7
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 4th, 2011 at 9:21 pm
@hrmmm ::
ditto
[Reply]

hrmmm Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 3:15 pm
I’ll just keep repeating myself if I have to.
“as a science grad and total agnostic, there is almost nothing more annoying than a self-righteous atheist.”
WINNER!! ::   +7
[Reply]

Wanderlost Reply:
October 9th, 2011 at 9:12 am
@hrmmm, I think self-righteousness itself is anti-science. If a scientific education doesn’t teach you to doubt certainties- especially your own- it’s not doing its job.
  +2
[Reply]
# 4 October 2011 at 9:17 pm

Barbara said:
It is a real school where he teaches, here’s his faculty address:
Associate Professor of Biology
myersp@morris.umn.edu
Here’s a quote from an academic colleague:
“The most exciting thing about biology is that it does stuff! —Van Gooch
professor of biology
And accompanying that quote is a photo of Van Gooch holding a rather large fish. It sounds like University of Minnesota Morris is the Harvard of the Gopher State. (or the North Star state as they now prefer to be called)
WINNER!! ::   +8
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 4th, 2011 at 11:38 pm
@Barbara ::
I’ll bet The Van Gooch is awesome … I want him to teacher me something right now.
[Reply]

Phil Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 3:46 am
@SD, Maybe he oversees the fermentation lab.
Muchly debated. What do you think?   +3
[Reply]
# 4 October 2011 at 9:24 pm

Loss Neffries said:
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
eben pagan’s wedding.
frank kern is the master of ceremony.
LOSER!! ::   -13
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 4th, 2011 at 11:40 pm
@Loss Neffries ::
Oh they’ve blocked our fine site :: they must hate my harassment … or worse.
God’s tiny blessings.
[Reply]

Mark Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 3:14 am
@SD,
(video of their wedding vows)
(pre-wedding video of them gushing how much they love each other)
Watch out for these two to go on a crusade to convince the whole world that their relationships are sick and that they need to invest hundreds of dollars to learn to have a relationship just like theirs.
On the face of it a video of wedding vows should be beautiful but there is something about this one that makes me feel very icky.
While Pagan might think he’s helped thousands of guys with their love lives, the real truth is very different I’m sure.
  +1
[Reply]

Mark Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 3:24 am
@Mark,
Ooops
Links here:
http://puahate.com/showthread.php?t=19073
  +1
[Reply]

Anonymous Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 3:51 am
And here they are on honeymoon… James Ray would be proud of the location they picked
  0
[Reply]

Bloggy Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 7:18 am
@,
After watching a bit of the honeymoon and wedding video:
I think Eben is so wrapped up in IM/NLP/Etc he is truly convinced he’s helping / healing the world.
On the other hand I think guys like Kern / Jenkins / Walker
realize what they’re doing. In other words, I think Pagan actually believes the crap he’s selling (and bought). Seems like the other guys realize the crap they sell is just a tool to make money.
Am I excusing him (Pagan) for his stupidity. Absolutely not. I’m just making an observation.
  0

SD Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 3:34 pm
OMG they went to Sedona on their Honeymoon? I guess they hadn’t heard about the whole haunting of the vortex thing …
http://saltydroid.info/the-haunting-of-angel-valley/
They’re “launching” their wedding. I like bizarre things and all … but this is just like an overload situation.

Ross Jeffries Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 9:40 am
@, SD So help me, Eben has developed a pronounced lisp. Never had that when he was just good old scamming David Deanushole
  +1

Bloggy Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 7:07 am
@Mark,
To each his own…but that wedding was probably one of the strangest things I’ve ever seen.
BTW, was that Wyatt Woodsmall in the back? LOL
  +1
[Reply]

stoic Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 10:47 am
@Bloggy,
The strangest thing about the wedding vid is Eben’s manic dancing eyebrows–is this some kind of new NLP semaphore he’s doing?
Watch the one where they discuss finding their mutual lurve and her eyebrows start doing a St Vitus dance as well…..its a viral eyebrow tic.
  +2

Anonymous Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 7:45 am
@Mark,
She is a love coach?
How very very full of shit…
Message to Ebens…you can invent titles and claim expertise all day long and get the rest of your gang to applaud but you’re still a failure who needs to lie in order to steal money
This ends in indictments
These guys actually create videos for the prosecutions case
  +5
[Reply]

422 Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 9:51 am
@Mark, that wedding is freaky, fake, freaky! I like the fact that it was “open source” and they put their own twist, but did anyone else notice the manic expressions on their faces?
And then the wedding vows, both were exactly the same thing, aren’t you supposed to make your own? I couldn’t help but get the impression that this was a business venture and not a wedding.
Guess that’s why they “launched” their wedding, it’s a product to be sold. Makes sense.
A relationship coach marries a PUA, and now they are going to be the new Dr Ruth and Dr Phil of the 21st century!
  0
[Reply]

Anonymous Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 11:11 am
@422,
Those wedding vows–aren’t they supposed to be personal and to each other? Yet these two were presenting them as a form of new moral code for the audience to take up— I could see a new ‘couples frauduct’ being brainstormed right there in the wedding, too.
  0

stoic Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 11:11 am
@422,
Those wedding vows–aren’t they supposed to be personal and to each other? Yet these two were presenting them as a form of new moral code for the audience to take up— I could see a new ‘couples frauduct’ being brainstormed right there in the wedding, too.
  0

Heathen Pagan Reply:
October 8th, 2011 at 9:25 am
@Mark,
Pass the barf bag please. The whole vow ceremony came across as more fake than Tony Robbins smile. “I vow to encourage your expanding sexuality Eban.” Don’t even want to know what that means, but I had to wonder if it had anything to do with a few “vows” later when she said she vowed to “really feel your pain”.
GAG
what a bunch of fucking phonies.
He started off as a realtor…well that explains everything.
Eban you’re a tool, no really, this isn’t a “growth opportunity” but a wake-up call.
Oh and this PZ myers guy sounds like a fucking asshole. You got him scared fake robot, you really do.
  0
[Reply]
# 4 October 2011 at 9:30 pm

Barbara said:
P.Z. Meyers is yet another Dawkins wannabe. It’s amusing that he and the people who comment there call themselves liberals. The comments on Anthony Navarro ranged from wanting him sued or jailed to those who wanted him lynched. P.Z. certainly has an odd take on liberalism as do his readers.
For someone who acts as if he has a deep commitment to science he plays fast and loose with easily verifiable facts and instead goes directly to an all out attack of anyone who disagrees with him. How is this “liberal” or “scientific”?
I feel really sympathetic to Anthony, Alison and the rest of the Navarro family. None of them asked for this and to have complete strangers like P.Z. Meyers using their family tragedy to try to garner attention for himself and attempt to create controversy…well, you’re correct, S.D., reduntant dirtbag he is.
WINNER!! ::   +8
[Reply]

Lanna Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 12:34 am
@Barbara,
I wasn’t bothered so much by the commenters who want Anthony Navarro sued or jailed – because then there’s due process – or lynched, which I just saw as childish, reactive vile. The comment that bothered me was from SmooveBB, who wrote, “It would probably be best to simply sterilize and lobotomize certain individuals.”
U.S. states still have laws on the books that allow court-ordered sterilization of “simple-minded” people, laws that were applied to whole families because one family member had a disability, a mental health problem or a criminal record. Modern Russian bureaucrats get rid of pesky journalists by having them declared insane, locking them up and force-feeding them psychoactive drugs in quantities that are equivalent to lobotomies.
That can’t be liberal atheism. That’s fascist fucking eugenics.
WINNER!! ::   +13
[Reply]
# 4 October 2011 at 10:14 pm

Bob from Texas said:
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
The 100,000 page views a day was clearly incorrect. On October 3rd, the site only pulled in a pathetic 170,000 hits.
LOSER!! ::   -6
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 4th, 2011 at 10:38 pm
@Bob from Texas ::
Oh really proxy server :: where’d you get that data point? From Naomi Dunford maybe? I hear she’s a reliable source.
[Reply]

_cartman_ Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 12:55 am
@Bob from Texas,
Hits are the amount of file requests [[not page views]] received. The only person who would get “hit” information is someone with access to the sites control panel [[since the requests would have to be "recorded" as they are being "served" from the source directory(s)]].
The reason I mention the source directory, is that if someone used one of my images on their page, and it was “pulled” directly from my directory…the “hit” is recorded on my control panel..not theirs…
When a page is requested it’s one hit…if the page contains images, each image file [[on that page]] is a hit [[style sheets, scripts, icons, etc., all hits]]…each page request could have many hits. 170K hits could be literally 170 page requests [[based on all the crap on that page]]….but you wouldn’t have that information unless you had control panel access…which I doubt you do…So what do you mean by hits?
WINNER!! ::   +21
[Reply]

_cartman_ Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 1:00 am
@_cartman_,
I’m mathematically inept tonight…that should be 1700 requests
  +5
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 1:18 am
@_cartman_ ::
Such a strange proxy comment right? So quick too …
One of the fake robot’s most astute advisers gut reaction to the Myers post was that it was about the new tagline … and I was like “no way” … not so sure now.
[Reply]

Jack Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 4:19 am
@Bob from Texas, Maybe mr. Myers doesn’t believe in metrics, too, either, because when I took my trip over to the DoubleClick Ad Planner for finding out the estimate of his 100,000K pageview/day claim I found some other type of science-type site which I’ll call Discover Magazine which now gets about 1.5 million pageviews per month according to Doubleclick Ad Planner, so now he wants us to know that FreeMyThoughts blog will get 3 Million pageviews per month very soon when compared to the magazine started in 1980?
More:
“The monthly magazine was launched in October 1980 by Time Inc. It was sold to Family Media, the owners of Health, in 1987. Walt Disney Company bought the magazine when Family Media went out of business in 1991. In October 2005 Discover was sold to two media investment companies. Bob Guccione, Jr., founder of Spin and Gear magazines, served as CEO for the first two years, followed by[when?] Henry Donahue. It was sold to Kalmbach Publishing in 2010 and the current[when?] editor-in-chief is Corey S. Powell.”
WINNER!! ::   +12
[Reply]
# 4 October 2011 at 10:26 pm

Dyler Thunder said:
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
His name is Robert Paulson.
LOSER!! ::   -11
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 4th, 2011 at 11:44 pm
@Dyler Thunder ::
Is that supposed to mean something?
[Reply]

Shit Storm Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 7:55 am
@SD,
From Fight Club…has no meaning. Movie sucked…
  0
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 3:56 pm
@Shit Storm ::
Remember when everyone used to quote Monty Python instead? Those were the good times …
[Reply]
# 4 October 2011 at 10:40 pm

Barbara said:
Interesting comments at this Discover magazine site about PZ Meyers:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/07/14/pz-myers-vs-unscientific-america-part-ii/
“PZ also admitted to me in private e-mail correspondence that he’s nowhere nearly the eminent scientist that his colleague, distinguished University of Wisconsin, Madison evolutionary developmental biologist Sean B. Carroll is. Moreover, unlike Ken Miller, he has not made any major discoveries in his chosen specialty within the biological sciences.”
“is he, PZ, still publishing in the primary lit these days?”
“Why do you ask? If he doesn’t does that make him NOT a scientist? PZ hasn’t peer published in years.”
“While Ken Miller hasn’t published original scientific research in years, he still maintains a lab, mentors graduate students, and is apparently still conducting research. Moreover, I understand that he had made an important discovery pertaining to cellular membranes years ago (In stark contrast, a certain Morris, MN-based evolutionary developmental biologist hasn’t made any significant discoveries in his chosen field.).”
“Not that this debate hasn’t occurred before, but no, if one is not publishing in the literature, and one is not currently doing any research, one has given up essentially being a scientist. People like PZ, Miller, and Dawkins would better be described as science popularists and educators than as working scientists.”
“PZ Myers has twelve listed peer-reviewed publications, with the last being in 2002, but his career emphasis has clearly focused more on education. He is also not at a research intensive university, so this record is not unusual.”
So, nothing published since 2002? Too busy going on the dinosaur rides and ridiculing people of (any)faith? Shouldn’t he be perishing about now? (according to the old dictum)
WINNER!! ::   +9
[Reply]

Jack Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 4:23 am
@Barbara, What a coincidence – I just pulled Discover Magazine pageview metrics for countering the 100K/day pageview claim to which probably I must feel obligated to state: “What in God’s name was he thinking?”
WINNER!! ::   +9
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 10:38 pm
@Barbara ::
It’s funny how most of the people I see calling him out around the web are leftist science types. It’s like he just stands around near other people’s good work and spittles bile … tries to pretend that that’s adding something.
Great “career” you got there bud.
[Reply]

Bor - the first man Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 10:47 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@SD,
That’s some hard hitting, well researched journalism you’ve performed there Mr Droid!
Now, just for fun, would you mind informing us how many times PZ’s published papers have been referrenced by other scientists publishing their own papers, and how far above the average the number is.
kthxbye
p.s. u mad bro?
LOSER!! ::   -11
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 10:56 pm
@Bor – the first man ::
Oh gosh I’ll do that right away … right as soon as I start caring. Maybe he could just send me his resume and I’ll pretend to be overawed by it.
Would that make you feel Thumbelina?
[Reply]

Bor - the first man Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 11:03 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@SD,
It’s clear to me that you don’t care about PZ; who would make that mistake, given your massive whinge about him and his terrible, terrible misgivings?
LOSER!! ::   -14
[Reply]
# 4 October 2011 at 10:41 pm

Barbara said:
This “liberal” man seems to have a specific hatred of the transgendered:
http://beckytranssexual.wordpress.com/
“Yup, these supposedly brainy, uber-qualified, sophisticated and self-proclaimed ‘feminist’ and ‘radical’ folk at Pharyngula, don’t seem to realise that a drag queen and a transwoman are not the same thing. In fact, if they hadn’t have told me I would have assumed that they were neither feminist nor radical at all. Perhaps this might have something to do with them reverting to exactly the same transphobic, misogynistic and sexist script as the chauvinist pigs and downright transphobic bigots.”
WINNER!! ::   +8
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 10:42 pm
@Barbara ::
PZ Myers is a liberal :: and Ted Haggard is str8.
[Reply]

Unaspammer Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 11:32 pm
@Barbara,
Here is Becky T.’s first post at Pharyngula. If you go look at it, you might notice a few things:
1) A year later, PZ still hasn’t “censored” it.
2) She Godwined on her first post (technically her third, but “KKK” is pretty close). Gee, I wonder why nobody liked her.
You might also notice from her blog:
3) Every post on her blog is a rant about PZ. She never writes about anything else, just about how terrible Pharyngula is.
4) The most recent post on her blog is in praise of David Mabus, a Canadian who was recently arrested and institutionalized after spending years sending out incoherent rants and death threats from his parents’ basement.
I don’t know exactly what the origin of Becky T.’s beef with PZ is, but she’s hardly a reliable source and probably in need of psychiatric help. You would do best not to emulate her.
Muchly debated. What do you think?   -1
[Reply]
# 4 October 2011 at 10:57 pm

George said:
There are a lot of things I don’t believe in.
However, you have to be an incredibly insensitive, egotistical prick to go out of your way to tear down something as personal as another human being’s faith. For many, faith is one of the few things that keeps them going through severe hardship.
What kind of person would intentionally go to someone’s church or place of religion to attack them for sport and narcissistic glee?
What if Paul Z. Myers had defiled that creationist museum exhibit with terminal cancer patients in wheelchairs observing? Such an audience would not be atypical. Would Myers have felt extra proud of himself for kicking people when they were really down?
Paul Z. Myers is a narcissistic bully, and ironically, many of the those he acts so viciously toward are the very people whose tax dollars provide the University cushion that enables him to tear them down.
Muchly debated. What do you think?   +1
[Reply]

Poop Chute Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 7:03 am
@George, The same kind of people who would go literally insane with rage if someone with faith dared poke fun at them or denigrate them for not sharing it.
Muchly debated. What do you think?   +2
[Reply]

RickK Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 9:09 am
@George,
The Creation Museum is NOT a private place of worship. It is open to the public and chock full of nonsense, lies, distortions, and anti-science rhetoric. It is absolutely due all the ridicule it receives and more. PZ Myers doesn’t care what people believe until it DOES enter the public arena.
To people who value truth, the Creation Museum is every bit as disgusting and hateful as would be a museum promoting the KKK’s portrayal of people of color.
What is unfortunate is how few scientifically literate THEISTS are taking the time to point out the pack of lies that is the Creation Museum.
In pointing out the lies at the Creation Museum, PZ was fighting the good fight.
The question is, why aren’t you?
WINNER!! ::   +24
[Reply]

Hal (the original Hal) Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 2:14 pm
@RickK,
Hey there Rick buddy. That was quite the mouthful.
I’ve never been to the Creation Museum but I do recognize an ad-hominem attack when I see one. :-)
Howz about you educate us illiterate folk on the “pack of lies” that is the Creation Museum?
And don’t you worryz about using big words, I truly is edumacated with no less than two of them there university degrees plus a diploma, in engineeringz and sciencez no less.
I even know the difference between real science (what’s observable, testable and repeatable) versus a vitriolic, humanistic worldview masquerading as science.
You know what I mean … the fact that Darwin’s finches were still finches with varying beak lengths in the end (i.e. adaptation within kinds) … meaning they didn’t burst into bunnies (or anything else) … you know … real science stuff.
As contrasted to how Darwin’s famous experiment is usually portrayed as a “proof” of molecules to man evolution … which is a belief … a worldview based on the belief that “In the begininning there was nothing, that exploded and created everything” and an a-priori commitment to “there is no God”.
So let’s hear the specifics of your accusation if you please. :-)
Muchly debated. What do you think?   +1
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 11:02 pm
@Hal (the original Hal) ::
I don’t know jack about it … but “creation museum” really does sound stupid.
It’s like the Bible meets Dollywood … I’m pretty sure the Jesus person I read about in that same Bible would be pretty irritated about it.
Personally :: I’m completely against going to Kentucky for any reason … but we all have our own beliefs.
[Reply]

Hal (the original Hal) Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 8:14 am
@SD,
LOL … never been to Kentucky, I’ll have to take your word on that.
I think what’s most annoying to me about these PZ trolls (actually any self absorbed intellect) is that they don’t know the difference between their own faith and real science.
Yet they bloviate in the most obnoxious and condescending manner about anybody who dares to challenge their vitriol.
And if I can just get a nibble from one of them (preferably the GasBag himself), I’ll demonstrate the difference.
Heeeere troll, c’mon boy. :-)
  +3
[Reply]

JGC Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 9:34 am
@Hal (the original Hal)
Just a little of the “edumacation” you requested
re: the Creation Museum’s lies, they portray dinosaurs and man as contemporaries, living apparently in harmony at a common point in time. This quite simply is not true: dinosaurs became extinct at the end of the Cretaceos period about 63 million years ago, while the earliest hominid species arose about 5 million years ago.
re: galapagos finches and “adaptation within kinds”, be aware that in the context of biological science adaptation and evolution represent two entirely different entities.
Adaptation occurs at the level of individual organisms, does not result from changes in genetic composition, and is not inheritable (a good example would be the physiologic changes an athlete’s body undergoes when training at higher elevation, resulting in inproved aerobic capacity). Evolutionary change occurs at the level of populations of organisms, as the result of changes in genetic composition (specifically, as the result of change in the frequency of expression of alleles over generations, and is inheritable (the classic example is industrial melanization in peppered moths).
Re: proof of “molecules to man” evolution, you’re making the common error of falsely conflating biogenesis and evolution. Evolutionary theories do not address living origins arising from molecules or other non-living precursors but instead only addresses changes over generations in populations of already living organisms.
WINNER!! ::   +7
[Reply]

Hal (the original Hal) Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 10:34 am
@JGC,
Would you agree that both creationists and evolutionists have the same objective data to observe and that it is the subjective interpretation that differs?
Or do you contend that a naturalistic interpretation of objective data is by definition objective?
For example:
You say “dinosaurs became extinct at the end of the Cretaceos period about 63 million years ago, while the earliest hominid species arose about 5 million years ago.”
Is that is an objective statement of fact or a statement of belief based on a worldview?
If the former, please state the basis of your claim.
“Evolutionary change occurs at the level of populations of organisms, as the result of changes in genetic composition (specifically, as the result of change in the frequency of expression of alleles over generations, and is inheritable (the classic example is industrial melanization in peppered moths).”
That is just another example of variation within kinds, the base genetic information was always present and the moths are still moths. There is NO ADDITIONAL information.
Please provide an example of ADDITIONAL genetic information arising from mutation.
“proof of “molecules to man” evolution, you’re making the common error of falsely conflating biogenesis and evolution. Evolutionary theories do not address living origins arising from molecules or other non-living precursors but instead only addresses changes over generations in populations of already living organisms.”
There’s no conflating, just stating. You logically can’t have one without the other.
  0
[Reply]

JGC Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 11:55 am
@Hal (the original Hal),
“Would you agree that both creationists and evolutionists have the same objective data to observe and that it is the subjective interpretation that differs? ”
>>No, I would not. What creationists do instead is to actively ignore the large body of objective evidence which opposes their articles of faith and falsifies special creation models. Henry Morris stated the creationist position explicitly in Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science , published in 1970, as “…the main reason for insisting on the universal Flood as a fact of history and as the primary vehicle for geological interpretation is that God’s Word plainly teaches it! No geologic difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture.”
“Or do you contend that a naturalistic interpretation of objective data is by definition objective?”
>>It is the evidence itself that is objective—it exists and may be examined. The benefit resulting from the fact that the science method employs methodologic naturalism when deriving explanatory models and theories is that only by doing so can good explanations be distinguished from bad ones (i.e., only by doing so do explanations become falsifiable.)
You say “dinosaurs became extinct at the end of the Cretaceos period about 63 million years ago, while the earliest hominid species arose about 5 million years ago.”
That is an objective statement of fact. Is that is an objective statement of fact or a statement of belief based on a worldview?
If the former, please state the basis of your claim.
An objective statement of fact, as demonstrated by a very large body of objective evidence with regard to the fossil record and fossil transitional series, the biogeographic distribution of species, radio-isochron dating of the fossils themselves and/or the sedimentary strata in which fossil remains are found, etc.
“That is just another example of variation within kinds, the base genetic information was always present and the moths are still moths.”
A question: what exactly is the equivalent biological term for the word “kind” as you’re using it here? Species? Genus? Order? That the “moths are still mouths” is an irrelevant finding, as evolution operates at all taxonomic levels and there’s no necessity for a change in genetic composition to result in a moth becoming other than a moth for that change to represent evolution.
“There is NO ADDITIONAL information.”
There’s no necessary for the creation of new or additional information for a change in genetic composition to represent evolution—all that is necessary is for the frequency of expression of alleles (old or new) within a population to change over generations. That said, known mechanisms have been seen to create new genetic information (for example, as the result of gene duplication followed by subsequent chemical or energetic mutagenesis of one or more copies of the duplicated gene).
” Please provide an example of ADDITIONAL genetic information arising from mutation.”
The clotting cascade and the bacterial flagellum, for starters, both of which developed as described by gene duplication and subsequent mutation of copies of the duplicated genes.
There’s also the interesting example of Flavobacterium K-172, where a point insertion mutation (a thymidine at position 99 of the sequence NYL B, if I recall correctly) created a new open reading frame that expressed a novel enzyme allowing the bacteria to digest nylon oligomers. By the absolutely most rigorous definition of “information” the bacteria’s genetic information increased by one ‘bit’—that inserted thymidine, creating not only new information but a new enzyme and a new phenotypic population.
“There’s no conflating, just stating. You logically can’t have one without the other.”
>>You are conflating two different thing: biogenesis (the origin of life) and evolution (the origin of biologically diverse populations of living organisms). Evolution only addresses changes in the genetic composition over generations in populations of ALREADY living organisms which result in the biological diversity we observe today and in the fossil record. Abiogenesis–how the first living population arose—isn’t within the scope of evolutionary models. They could have arisen by purely natural emchanisms, they could have poofed into existence by magic, they could have been seeded onto the planet by aliens (as Crick and Hoyle have sometiems opined). it makes no difference to evolution, whose scope only begins with populations of living organisms already in existence.
WINNER!! ::   +9

sp Reply:
January 22nd, 2012 at 3:42 pm
@RickK,
  0
[Reply]
# 4 October 2011 at 11:08 pm

Jabba said:
“However, you have to be an incredibly insensitive, egotistical prick to go out of your way to tear down something as personal as another human being’s faith.”
Just not true.
It may not be a pretty job to do, but calling out irrationalism is the duty of all, well, rational-minded people. If you let ride the ‘belief system’ of the religious, then you may as well let ride the nonsense from the GOP, Tea Party, Scientologists, etc.
And yes, it affects us all. It’s not merely giving comfort to a few; just check out the amount of money funneled into the pro-Israel lobby by evangelists in order to sustain the dream that the reckoning will occur in the middle east (ie following mass destruction, they get beamed up to heaven while the rest of us heathens end up in a river of blood)
Don’t thumb your nose at education.
WINNER!! ::   +26
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 12:58 am
@Jabba ::
Sure :: calling out irrationalism is important … especially if you set out to write a Theory of Moral Sentiments that a bunch of other stuffy dickbags are gonna read over tea and cake.
But to quote The Bible :: and The Byrds … to everything there is a season.
Person 1 :: My husband just died … but at least I’ve got my faith in Jesus.
Person 2 {PZ Myers} :: Jesus is a fraud. Don’t you understand that the Jesus story predates the Hebrews? Ignorant fucking pleb.
That shit is lame … and nobody’s “duty”.
Lastly :: me no like the GOP … or the Tea Party … but I seriously fucking resent you lumping them in with Scientologists. That’s just sloppy :: and it muddles both points.
[Reply]

Dave Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 4:01 am
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@SD,
No doubt this PZM was a cunt meddling with the Navarros, but please guys, let’s not piss out of the bowl.
Religion (and I don’t mean personal spirituality) IS evil.
(Almost) everyone wants to be rich -> here comes Mr.IM selling you unicorns
(Almost) everyone wants to believe in something greater than this (comfortably self-sufficient) reality -> here comes Mr.Rev telling you that gays go to hell, condoms are for losers, virgins (in the form of nerdy 30yo guys) are craving for martyrs and mostly important: God needs your monies!
I’ll go to heaven, and you can too! (not now, please)
LOSER!! ::   -10
[Reply]

FO Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 8:41 am
@SD,
LOL, this is a huge strawman.
Do you actually know of any instances where PZ Myers went pushing his atheism to a mourning wife!?
What are you portraying here is your caricature of PZ Myers, not the real thing.
The fact that you confuse the two things casts doubts on your ability to be fair.
Muchly debated. What do you think?   +5
[Reply]

Clay Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 9:22 am
@FO, Where is the strawman? Did you get a picture? I only see a post about P.Z. Myers, the evil asshole atheist that spews hate.
Muchly debated. What do you think?   +2
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 4:16 pm
@FO ::
I make no pretense of being fair. I’m fighting crime … get in my way and I’ll run you over.
I care about PZ Myers to the extent that he just smeared an innocent man who is a victim of the kind of crimes I’m talking about.
If PZ Myers wrote a post called “The Salty Droid is and Evil Scumbag” … then I’d have ignored him … cause I could care less what he thinks … and I have it coming.
[Reply]

FO Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 12:16 am
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@SD,
If you fight crime, you will have better to be fair, otherwise you put your efforts where they are not needed and become a criminal yourself.
LOSER!! ::   -5
[Reply]

FO Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 12:19 am
@SD,
Also, why should I (or others) want to take your claims seriously or even engage debate with you if you don’t care about fairness?
It seriously weakens your message.
Muchly debated. What do you think?   -3
[Reply]

Reality Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 3:20 pm
@FO,
“Also, why should I (or others) want to take your claims seriously or even engage debate with you if you don’t care about fairness?”
How would someone even recognize ‘fairness’ if they’ve been raised on P.Z. Myers’ blog?
  +5

Lance Baker Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 11:23 am
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@SD, Reading your ridiculous comment merely shows that you, along with a number of others making comments here, have absolutely no idea of what PZ Myers says or writes. Before committing your ill thought out comments to the permanence of the internet, at least have the courtesy to go over to Myers’ Blog and read of some of his articles or watch one of his debates to get a feel for the man’s views. If you are making contributions to this conversation based only on what the person who wrote this article has said (in his fragmented, barely coherent writing style) then you’re doing yourself a real disservice. The author of this article has merely scrawled out two pages of ad hominem rubbish without once pointing out what Myers was actually inaccurate or incorrect about. Repeating endlessly that Myers lied is meaningless unless one points out specifically what the lie was and why that is so. My guess is that you and the majority of those making negative comments here have virtually no idea of what the details of this subject are and why it has become a mini shit fight. Do yourself a favour and track down the actual material that Myers was using as his source and don’t just take the word of the semiliterate individual who contributed the story that has you and these others so stirred up. Find the raw data, read it yourself and then decide who is telling porky pies (lies). If after taking both sides into consideration you still wish to stick metaphoric pins into Myers’ eyes (as is your ‘free speech’ right), then go for it with the blessing and best wishes of the American constitution and all of us nasty, bitter, Jesus hating, communist, baby eating atheists. (well, we’re best described as that if you believe the majority of comments from the warm,loving Christian community).
LOSER!! ::   -9
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 4:11 pm
@Lance Baker ::
Ummm … I bullet pointed all the specific misstatements by PZ Myers that were tortiously incorrect.
Read it again for the first time champ.
Legally speaking :: it’s quite dangerous making any allegations about a private persons private life. If FreeThoughts had a legal editor … like the apparently way less popular Discover Magazine has … then he/she would never have a allowed such a dangerous :: zero upside :: risk.
[Reply]

Anonymous Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 8:19 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@SD, I read it the first time ‘champ’. I don’t wish to join in your style of foul mouthed personal attacks rather than arguments with substance but I have to say you have one addled, fragmented style of writing which is difficult to follow. You really need to focus your thoughts. I’m very aware of your ‘bullet points’, but just saying those things does not make them true. If you disagree with what Myers said then you should correct the errors with clear, sourced information rather that just saying someone is wrong, wrong, wrong (mingled with numerous personal insults). For instance; your counter to how the mother died would confuse anyone who does not have an intimate knowledge of what the hell is going on in your head. If her husband was not responsible then explain that fact clearly and then explain that Myers is lying and Anthony Sr is a free man walking around. If that’s what you are implying of course.
On a second personal note following my comments on your writing style; choosing to insult each and every person who disagrees with you is not really going to win you any points in a debate/discussion. Your immediate assumption that anyone who disagrees with what you consider was your impeccably laid our argument, must have not read it is a sad indictment on your mentality. Get used to it dude. With what I’ve seen of your opinions I think you are setting yourself up for many disappointing interactions with detractors. And as bitter a pill as it will be for you to swallow, they will have all actually read your arguments and found them to be lacking.
LOSER!! ::   -12
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 11:25 pm
@Lance ::
Thanks for the input champ.
But there isn’t really too much too debate :: and I don’t see anyone addressing the issue … which is pretty much the normal situation.
See I’m like …
“crime is bad”
… and then all sorts of different peoples are like …
“hey yeah … crime is bad”
Then we all kind of work together to try and bring attention to that crime and help the victims of its menace.
So other than :: “salty droid is too mean” :: there isn’t much to debate. People from all across the spectrum agree with “crime is bad”.
Are you still with me champ?
Most of the “detractors” are in fact the people doing the crimes :: or supporting the crimes :: cause no one else wants to defend them. So the posts are substantive … and when “detractors” show up in a state of delusional self-righteousness … I mock them without mercy for everyone’s amusement.
It’s very fun … especially for me. I’m really surprised that it’s happened like that in this situation because you’d think most “skeptic” types would be totally gaga for “crime is bad” … especially these sorts of blatant thought crimes that rely on all the things “skeptics” are supposed to fighting against.
But people are sheep … smart people too … I should quit being surprised by it.
I’m sorry for talking down to you champ :: it’s just that I view you as my inferior.

Whatthewhat Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 8:10 pm
@Lance Baker, I appreciate the sentiment and recommend you take your own advice. Perhaps you should the multiple posts and comments regarding the Navarro story before you begin assuming that the people here don’t know what’s going on. I would also like to point out the independent research that many of our best recurring commenters do on any given topic. That kind of thing is pretty common here.
  +6
[Reply]

Whatthewhat Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 9:33 pm
@Whatthewhat, Damn. I’m going to need to get much better at typing on the iPad or refrain from commenting unless I have an actual keyboard, spelling & grammar up there is awful.
  0
[Reply]

Sam the Shrubbist Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 2:55 am
@Jabba,
“It may not be a pretty job to do, but calling out irrationalism is the duty of all”
Such a comment floors me, and I’m far from uneducated.
Do you visit hospital cancer wards and rip crucifixes out of the hands of the frightened and dying while telling them, “That’s irrational! You won’t need this where you’re going, because you’ll just be feeding maggots?”
Get a grip on yourself and find some humanity. Learn the value of compassion, both to others and to yourself. You don’t need any “eternal incentive” to do that, you just need to recognize the human beings around you as deserving of respect and the freedom to make their own choices.
It’s nobody’s “duty” to take away the only real insulation millions of people have separating them from the brutal realities of hard daily lives. You should get out of your ivory tower and go live in squalor in middle America.
You would see crumbling communities where what you call “irrationalism” is in reality the most RATIONAL way people have to cope and survive. What you would propose is not a viable substitute for these millions of people. Their religion provides both hope and a far more powerful coping mechanism than your alternate view could possibly provide these people.
Perhaps you have accepted the concept of death leading to nowhere, but to millions of people who are not your exact clone, that is terrifying and immobilizing. Add to that poverty and despair, and it’s a recipe for despondency.
Why would you force the beliefs you are able to practice in an environment of comparative ease and reflection on people so removed from your stratum that it would actually result in cruel suffering and anguish?
When a trembling woman on a respirator turns to me and says she feels horrible, but that her horoscope says things will look up tomorrow, I am going to smile and indulge her comforting thoughts. And if I turn and see you marching toward her with a scowl, ready to tell her to “start being rational,” I’ll excuse myself, walk you to the nearest restroom, and proceed to beat the ever lasting shit out of you.
WINNER!! ::   +23
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 3:05 am
@Sam the Shrubbist ::
For realz!
Reminds of this article I just read about utilitarians being fucking assholes …
http://www.economist.com/node/21530078
It’s like :: it’s fine to be a fucking asshole :: but learn to pretend that you’re not one when other people are looking … I’m sure that it’s not asking too much.
[Reply]

Clark Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 5:09 am
@Sam the Shrubbist,
Do you visit hospital cancer wards and rip crucifixes out of the hands of the frightened and dying while telling them, “That’s irrational! You won’t need this where you’re going, because you’ll just be feeding maggots?”
Sorry, but that’s the most ridiculous (and overused) straw-man against standing up for reason and secularism out there. Not even Hitchens, who is probably the least agreeable atheist, proposes to do something like that.
Their religion provides both hope and a far more powerful coping mechanism than your alternate view could possibly provide these people.
Then how do the >70% of atheists/agnostics in Denmark and Sweden cope with their struggles and hardships?
What makes you think you know how many unproven and unprovable beliefs a person needs to get through life?
Perhaps you have accepted the concept of death leading to nowhere, but to millions of people who are not your exact clone, that is terrifying and immobilizing.
So how about we make shit up and sell it as the truth. I’m sorry, but I fail to see how that’s a good thing.
If somebody is depressed by thinking about a friend living in poverty, I might make him feel better by lying and saying that his friend just became a millionaire, even they I don’t know them.
I wouldn’t be helping them (or their friend), I would do them a disservice by deceiving them and making them live a comfortable lie. What if death is eternal? How about we appreciate life and work on better health care and safer societies so less people die?
Add to that poverty and despair, and it’s a recipe for despondency.
Why not work on more humane regulations so millions of people don’t have to live their whole lives in poverty, while others make millions running their megachurches? How about telling people to start opposing a financial system that has always catered to the wishes of a wealthy minority, while the majority of working people have seen their (real) wages stagnate or decline?
When a trembling woman on a respirator turns to me and says she feels horrible, but that her horoscope says things will look up tomorrow, I am going to smile and indulge her comforting thoughts
How about a stereotypically opposite example then: How about the people who’ve rejected religion years ago but still can’t shake the fear of hell their parents (and sometimes churches) instilled in them?
How about the people who’ve struggled to gain the same rights as others because some holy book deems them inferior or sinful?
For every example where faith is helpful to an individual, there’s one or more examples where it hurts oneself or others, sometimes entire societies.
I think there’s value in being skeptical of untested/testable claims and be open about it – withing certain limitations that should (and probably are) obvious to every skeptic, rationalist or atheist out there.
And when I’m in pain, I’ve always appreciated a “Well can I help you?” more than a “Well God’s gonna fix it”.
WINNER!! ::   +31
[Reply]

BananaTaco Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 11:42 am
@Clark,
And when I’m in pain, I’ve always appreciated a “Well can I help you?” more than a “Well God’s gonna fix it”.
And you are welcome to that preference. Everyone has their own experience, opinion, frame of reference. Have you been reading this blog long? This isn’t a place to ‘win’ an argument. There is no winning here. Look around at the world. Who do you see when you look across the room? Or, at the desk across from you? Or walking in the evening?
Do you see yourself? Or just “other” people?
His argument was about compassion. However insubstantial, unfounded, and delicate his argument, your parsing and deconstructing only proves one thing:
You have one wish – to be right.
WINNER!! ::   +17
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 4:30 pm
@Clark ::
I agree with some of that too … and I know you like this topic … and this is kind of a fun place to talk about it because of how variant the opinions are.
But …
It’s not really the point … so don’t go nuts.
Obviously almost everybody here sees the importance of talking straight … and having no sacred ground where proper reasoning is banished. Critics are important in every area of life … not least religion.
This isn’t about attacking Christianity … it’s about attacking an individual Christian. There’s a wide fucking gulf between the two.
[Reply]

Bonnie Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 8:29 am
@Sam the Shrubbist,
I was halfway agreeing with you until I came to your last line — “I’ll excuse myself, walk you to the nearest restroom, and proceed to beat the ever lasting shit out of you.” — I mean, really — and I know you probably weren’t serious about that, but still….
Muchly debated. What do you think?   +3
[Reply]

Sam the Shrubbist Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 12:34 pm
@Bonnie, I must give credit where credit is due. I had just finished dictating that comment (up to the second from last line) to my comment typist of many years, Mrs. Harriet Windervear-Plotkins.
Then, somehow, during the 14 short minutes or so we adjourned to the arboretum for tea, a rambunctious, young potted Crepe Myrtle tacked on that last sentence and submitted it unbeknownst to either myself or Mrs. Windervear-Plotkins.
In fact, had you not called attention to it, said Crepe Myrtle would probably not have been discovered and subsequently reprimanded with a thorough pruning.
I thank you for your prompt reporting, but do be cautious if you find yourself walking amongst any Crepe Myrtles, as they tend to talk and may hold grudges, although certainly not to the same extent as say, Wisteria.
WINNER!! ::   +15
[Reply]

Bonnie Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 3:07 pm
@Sam the Shrubbist,
Not to worry, Sam! — I think I got it figured out now and understand why Crepe Myrtle did that — she musta thought you were talking about James Arthur Ray — cause he WOULD take away a dying person’s last bit of hope and faith and breath — cause he DID! And I’d like to pulverize the bastard myself!
My apologies! ;)
WINNER!! ::   +13
[Reply]

BananaTaco Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 11:32 am
@Sam the Shrubbist, I dare say, you have actually made this comment section a better place for your words. Thank you.
WINNER!! ::   +12
[Reply]

Sam the Shrubbist Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 12:41 pm
@BananaTaco, Why thanks for the nice words. As you probably noted in my reply above to Bonnie, that last sentence can be attributed to the youthful hijinks of a briefly unsupervised Crepe Mertle, which is now learning that a treat of Miracle-Gro is not a right, but a privilege.
WINNER!! ::   +10
[Reply]
# 5 October 2011 at 12:26 am

Comrade PhysioProf said:
What’s with all the “::” symbols? Is that supposed to mean something in English?
You are very confused when you assert that atheists like Myers are telling people that they “can’t” believe whatever they want. All they are telling people is that certain beliefs are false and–more importantly–pernicious.
WINNER!! ::   +8
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 1:48 am
@Comrade PhysioProf ::
You are very confused about what I give a shit about. Don’t care about any of your stupid belief systems … or lack thereof. I care about observable harms. I care about the Navarros. I care about the victims of cult crimes.
This is a single purpose entity.
So what’s your share of the 100,000 pageviews per day? What’s your take of the ad revenue? Just trying to make sure that you don’t hold any pernicious beliefs.
[Reply]

David Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 3:28 am
@Comrade PhysioProf, Paul isn’t simply “telling,” he is “railing, and he is railing uninvited, in other people’s spaces. That’s not just disrespectful, that’s hostile.
I think Myers is entitled to whatever personal views he cares to have. I’m certainly not going to pop into his office, climb up on his desk, and set fire to a biology text while lecturing him and being photographed as though I were conquering some band of lesser primitives.
Similarly, I find it unacceptable in a civilized society that he has such little respect for others that he would not comport himself with comparable respect and decency.
WINNER!! ::   +10
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 4:37 pm
@David ::
Exactly!
It’s a violation of the basic rules of decency that you’d expect the average American 6th grader to understand and exhibit … whether they’d be taught evolution or “creationism” {whatever the hell that is}.
[Reply]
# 5 October 2011 at 1:30 am

dstemper said:
I am liberal and do not believe in a higher being that created us. This guy makes me look bad LOL. He is far from scientific and far from being a liberal. A liberal would not judge someone else’s belief system or chastise them for believing and worshiping a certain way, Especially if it doesn’t affect them.
I look at all people the same way, no matter how they believe, I know of good Christians, bad Christians, good atheists, bad atheists etc. We cannot judge all people accordingly just because they have a belief one way or the other.
Personally, the guy sounds like an asshole. And most likely, he is pist off at the world because they don’t take him seriously anymore.
WINNER!! ::   +8
[Reply]

FO Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 8:50 am
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@dstemper, Did you judge Muslim’s belief system in 9/11?
Thing is, beliefs have consequences.
Some beliefs more than others.
If I am genuinely convinced that some beliefs are harmful for the society I live in, I have to challenge them.
Please note, this does not mean that I will go around and harass people.
This means that whenever these beliefs are proposed directly to me, I will reject them as socially appropriate and, if requested, motivate or debate my rejection.
LOSER!! ::   -6
[Reply]

Steve Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 10:10 am
@FO, What do you call P.Z. Myers going into a place of religion for the sole purpose of confrontation? Those people did not come to him, he intentionally went and disrupted their world. Now THAT goes beyond harrassment.
I’m not even religious and I would never do something like that. That’s over the top bad behavior and nobody should be treated like that.
WINNER!! ::   +10
[Reply]

FO Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 12:31 am
@Steve,
I was speaking about the fact that beliefs have consequences in real life, so many of them just cannot be ignored.
What has PX to do with this.
Anyway.
With “place of religion” do you refer to the Creation Museum?
  0
[Reply]

dstemper Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 4:04 pm
@FO,
I don’t judge individuals on the belief system that they purposely distorted.
Should I judge Christianity based on members of the Westboro Baptist Church?
You need to implore critical thinking skills in times like that.
I have many friends, some Christians, some Muslims, some Buddists, some Hindu, and a few atheists. Their belief and/or lack of belief should never be considered on the actions of a few radicals within their faiths. How would you want to be judged?
WINNER!! ::   +12
[Reply]

FO Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 12:33 am
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@dstemper,
50% of Americans believe in Creationism and reject Evolution.
Are they radicals?
LOSER!! ::   -4
[Reply]

Sean Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 2:35 am
@FO, How long ago did you survey them? And have you set the deadline for them to switch over to your thinking?
  +6
[Reply]

Alley-Cat Reply:
October 12th, 2011 at 4:21 pm
@FO,
No they aren’t radicals. They aren’t watching enough Discovery Channel.
Perhaps it would help if so-called ‘scientists’ like Myers didn’t call them idiots, fuckwits and morons all the time and actually tried to teach them something.
  +2
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 4:47 pm
@FO ::
“Did you judge Muslim’s belief system in 9/11?”
That’s a terrible sentence … and no … because that’s what an ignorant person would do.
I spent 9/11 thinking about how America’s foreign policy has propped up and supported tyrannies for many long decades … and about how the 4000 dead people were just a tiny tiny tiny little drop in the bucket compared to how many people die each year because everyone wants to drive their death-cars to the suburbs where they can avoid all the blacks and mexicans.
[Reply]

FO Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 12:36 am
@SD,
This is very good and (I’d say) the right thing to do.
Unfortunately it is not how most people reacted.
  -3
[Reply]

Wyrd Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 11:52 pm
@FO,
You are very confused when you assert that atheists like Myers are telling people that they “can’t” believe whatever they want. All they are telling people is that certain beliefs are false and–more importantly–pernicious.
Yes, and I agree that certain beliefs have a harmful effect.
But I also believe that directly confronting and challenging deeply held beliefs is counter-productive kind of like crossing the center divider of a highway whilest doing 65 mph.
Trying to ram atheism down peoples’ throats once they’ve already “got religion” makes you look like fundamentalist yourself.
I’d say more, but I hear real life calling. Sorry.
(P.S. IMHO, religion as a whole doesn’t have to be the problem. Just the fundamentalism and extremism. All we have to do is get them all to convert to Unitarian Universalism. And if that sounds stupid, well you’re probably right, but think on it: is it really any less ridiculous than the idea that all the hardcore anti-religion atheists are going to be able to de-religion-ify the world?)
–
Furry cows moo and decompress.
WINNER!! ::   +7
[Reply]

FO Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 12:42 am
@Wyrd,
sorry, but when religious people try to decide what science is or who can marry whom, then it is time to confront them.
Again, beliefs have real-life consequences also for those who do not hold them.
The point is that most atheists (the ones harder to notice) don’t go around trying to evangelize.
They will react when religion is pushed down their throats (such as the examples above).
Hey, you guys told me I shouldn’t judge a movement by their fringe elements!
Muchly debated. What do you think?   -1
[Reply]

Sean Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 2:39 am
@FO,
“sorry, but when religious people try to decide what science is or who can marry whom, then it is time to confront them.”
You don’t think there are at least 4 or 5 atheists in the universe who don’t think gays should marry? Statistically, there are probably *thousands* that do, and for whatever non-religious reasons.
Should we ignore THAT fringe movement?
WINNER!! ::   +7
[Reply]

Wyrd Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 9:17 am
@FO,
sorry, but when religious people try to decide what science is or who can marry whom, then it is time to confront them.
Again, beliefs have real-life consequences also for those who do not hold them.
sorry, but when religious people try to decide what science is or who can marry whom, then it is time to confront them.
Whenever any person or group tries to make laws I object to, repeal laws I support, or modify an existing law in a manner that I feel is detrimental to the overall good of the country, I get upset. Sometimes I get upset enough that I do something about it like write people in Congress, post on blogs, etc. All that.
In our very religious country, there are many times when those laws have to do with religion. For example: I hate the fact that we have so many “faith based initiatives” in our country because it seems a little un-fair to the non-faith folk. Or even just the different faith folk. I mean, I could be wrong, but I doubt there’s much Angel Food Ministries for the poor in a Wiccan church.
But even for all of that–still I would not waste my time going around directly confronting individual religious people and telling them they are wrong. See, because I feel that, that kind of behavior is sanctimonious and about as productive as pounding your head into a wall.
Quote from Marcus of Babylon 5: “You can get more with a kind word and a two-by-four than you can with just a kind word.”
But what I really mean is: Directly confronting people is very dramatic and adrenaline filled, but it is not very productive. There are many ways to oppose a person or idea that don’t necessarily force you and that person or thing to be enemies.
–
Furry cows moo and decompress.
  +2
[Reply]
# 5 October 2011 at 1:58 am

Yakaru said:
I’m a fan PZ Myers’ website, and have been for a long time. In principle I have no problem if he wants to comment on what he sees as fundamentalist religion cloaking personal threats, but linking only to Naomi D’s site without mentioning her financial interests or bogus claims of death threats etc, was really not good enough. I think he’s been used by her (or by whoever got the bright idea to get him to weigh in – no doubt specifically in the hope it would counter the damage the Droid was doing to her scam). Just adding a kind of a disclaimer in the comments is not good enough from someone of his standing, in my opinion.
A few more points though:
Creationism isn’t just about people privately believing what they want to believe; it’s about people using politics to prevent science being taught in schools. It’s not even just about stopping children from learning evolution and the basics of biology, though that is damaging enough. Creationists plan to replace the whole of science with a “science” that is based on their own bizarre version of “Biblical truth”. (google “wedge document”). That is a great threat to your children’s and your country’s future. And it needs to be opposed in every way possible. And PZ Myers’ approach to it, regardless of whether one finds it tasteful, reaches a big audience.
Creationists are loud, aggressive and supported by many powerful politicians and, incredibly, their agenda is on the agenda in every presidential election.
I am in favor of Creationism facing every form of opposition possible. Certainly PZ is a loudmouth, but everything he says about biology and (often) about religion is thoroughly backed up by (independently verifiable) science. So it is wrong to say that he is “just like a fundamentalist”. Fundamentalists have nothing to say when you ask for the evidence.
In the matter at hand he has slipped up and his disclaimer was inadequate, but I can’t support some of the generalizations and misconceptions about science and creationism that have been said here.
WINNER!! ::   +22
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 4:37 am
@Yakaru ::
wtf?
Who said anything about creationists?
But :: since you brought it up …
Is creationism why American students suck at math? Cause I thought it was about shitty schools.
Science doesn’t need loser humans “fighting” for it … it’s a method. It’s the all powerful organizing force … with it organizing us … not us it. Nothing will stop the accelerated accumulation of information … even if all the precious PZ Myers style windbags disappear from the earth right this second in the most highlarious of mass extinctions.
He relied on a liar to spread lies … and then censored dissent … and even a non dissenting casual reference to dissent. There’s no excuse for that … none.
What if his article was about Colleen’s family {also Christians} based on something horrible Megan Fredrickson blogged to try and distract me? Then you’d still be worrying about Kentucky creationism?
[Reply]

FO Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 9:02 am
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@SD,
Science is a method, but it is not taught properly.
The advent of creationism is a consequence for this, and Myers is a strong advocate of improving science education.
Regarding the other claims, I reached your website from his just clicking a link he provided, so I don’t think he’s censoring you.
You are doing the same and that’s good.
However, I came here to read your version of the facts, but your article is poor on the actual events.
I have no troubles to believe that Myers got deceived, but your case, is a bit lost in the ad-hominems.
If instead you just wanted to vent, I can understand.
LOSER!! ::   -4
[Reply]

Yakaru Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 11:57 am
@SD,
The reason I mentioned creationism was because you wrote: “You don’t want people thinking that they can just believe whatever the fuck they want to get them through the day :: and to cope with their own mortality :: and the mortality of those they treasure … that’s why pointing and laughing is so important.”
I hate disagreeing with you Salty, coz I know where you’re coming from, but I think that’s an unfair characterization of Myers’ attitude. He behaved like that towards a group of creationists, not against people who are privately religious.
I thought that was not only wrong, but unnecessary.
Myers should not have published a private letter without doing a background check. He made a mistake, and didn’t do enough to correct it, and he probably was indeed blinded by his dislike of religion. And I think that point disappears behind all the stuff about his other — justified — attacks on religion.
I understand you wanting to go out on a limb for Anthony N, and this case a clear example of the way scammers like Dunford ruin lives. But I wonder if maybe you are putting yourself in a compromising position if he privately is using this heavy biblical guilt stuff (in a way that Colleen’s family haven’t).
  +1
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 11:52 pm
@Yakaru ::
First :: I love you.
Now this … “but I think that’s an unfair characterization of Myers’ attitude”
And this … “and he probably was indeed blinded by his dislike of religion.”
See the problem?
His post points to one specific Christian who is going though a very horrible trauma to compound an even worser previous trauma. It’s fucked.
The paragraph you quote isn’t about the creation museum trip … it’s about PZ Myers. But he can’t get on or off that child’s toy … there was no way that golden hilarity was getting cut.
[Reply]

Yakaru Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 5:05 am
@SD,
I love you too, Salty….
It wasn’t clear to me that you weren’t criticizing Myers for his anti-creationist work, but I’m glad to hear you weren’t. (I hope other readers also realize you weren’t.)
…Yes, I was prepared to speculate his dislike of religion “probably” affected his judgment, but that doesn’t mean I think he’s a bigot.
Looking at the horror stories of religious abuse Myers has highlighted over the years I think his dislike of religion is justified, but in this case it may be what led him to disregard other important factors. In my book, he could’ve corrected his mistake by a note outlining Dunford’s lies and manipulations and acknowledging he’d been unwittingly used by an interested party. I’m unhappy with his response.
My only issue with what you’re doing in this post, Salty is that I think arguing about his motives and character is unnecessary. For the purpose of argument, you could have assumed Myers’ intentions were impeccable and still have made your case just as strongly.
Instead, this line of attack has opened the door for a counterproductive string of ignorant attacks on science and secularism in the comments. Many seem to have taken your post as an open invitation for them to settle their personal agenda with Myers and other atheists, and parade their fear and ignorance of science.
It distracts from the issue, makes some who are supposedly agreeing with The Salty Droid look like ignoramuses and an easy target.
That’s how I see it, and that’s why I’m commenting like this. I don’t think this fight is a constructive one, and worse, I think it leads to exactly the kind of polarization that helps people like Naomi D to thrive.
Whatever…You’ve got my support Salty, I hope that’s clear to everyone.
  +1
[Reply]

Yakaru Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 6:04 am
@Yakaru,
Whoops, just a bit more of a look around…If Myers has been deleting your comments, that’s mega-pathetic. I’ve never seen that that from him before. I’d have to take back some of the above.
  +1

SD Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 10:12 pm
@Yakaru ::
Many seem to have taken your post as an open invitation for them to settle their personal agenda …
… oh how unusual.
I guess I’ll start taking account of what freaks are going to say before I write … and then I won’t end up having to write anything … which will be a big relief because it’s kinda like work.

Alley-Cat Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 4:58 am
@Yakaru,
“Instead, this line of attack has opened the door for a counterproductive string of ignorant attacks on science and secularism in the comments. Many seem to have taken your post as an open invitation for them to settle their personal agenda with Myers and other atheists, and parade their fear and ignorance of science.”
To be honest I haven’t seen a lot [if any] of that in the comments. I’d never heard of Meyers until he was mentioned here.
My personal problem with Meyers and his self-proclaimed rational, “free-thinking” followers is that they are, [in my humble opinion] pretentious, intolerant, bigoted, supercilious, patronizing little fascists and no better than the religious fascists they rail against.
Undoubtedly many of Meyers’ followers them have benefited from some form of higher education and they spend their free time sitting on his blog waiting for some less articulate “chew toy” to come along so that they can demonstrate just how superior they are.
It also needs to be said that some of the abuses carried out in the name of science have been just as horrendous as those carried out in the name of religion.
Anyway I’m waffling on. Time to stop :)
  +4

Not an immer Reply:
October 9th, 2011 at 8:13 am
@Yakaru,
“It wasn’t clear to me that you weren’t criticizing Myers for his anti-creationist work”
His “anti-creationist work”??? I personally don’t believe in creationism, but anyone whose “work” is crusading against any belief system, really needs to get a haircut and get a real job.
  +6

Grover Lembeck Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 6:31 am
@Yakaru,
I hadn’t even noticed the word “creationism” in this post until your comment. You seem to be going way, way off topic.
That won’t work here. Nothing works here, as far as getting the droid to lose focus. Creationists annoy me as much as the next guy, but they are neither here nor there when it comes to the sins of this asshole. He needs to print a few serious retractions.
Muchly debated. What do you think?   +1
[Reply]
# 5 October 2011 at 3:28 am

Barbara said:
Another account of PZ Myers at work:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/06/rate_my_professors_pz_myers047681.html
Touring Scotland, atheist biologist and blogger P.Z. Myers spoke to the local “skeptics” society in Glasgow. After the talk in the Q&A,a young man questioned Myers on homology and the evolution of developmental pathways, to which the biologist responded with a string of angry abuse:
“Aren’t you a little bit ashamed to have been responsible for this bulls–t? So you have no sense of shame that you’ve concocted this series of questions that are built on ignorance.”
The exchange is between an older man, heavy and bearded, hardly a distinguished scholar but a professor nonetheless who’s a popular writer on atheism and science, speaking before an adoring audience at a Glasgow pub; and on the other hand, a physically slight young man setting out to embark on his own professional training in the same field. The young man is earnest and nervous. He talks a little too fast and seems unaccustomed to public jousting. The older man, on being challenged, is bullying, abusive, and personally insulting.
**************************************************************************
The above was written by David Klinghoffer June 22 2011
I’m really failing to see how this man identifies himself as a liberal. He absolutely refuses to tolerate dissent of any kind. I’m also convinced that bullying people never wins them over to your point of view. He claims to want to advance science education. But his attitude will not help that cause, it will harden people against his message.
Why didn’t he do his homework on the Naomi Dunford situation? Plenty of other people did, people who had originally believed her tweets came here and read the whole story. Then they made up their minds, after hearing both sides…shouldn’t a “scientist” do at least that much?
WINNER!! ::   +11
[Reply]

Clark Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 6:30 am
@Barbara,
Evolutionnews is a propaganda outlet of the discovery institute. Using them as a source on Evolutionists is like quoting World Net Daily on Obama’s political goals.
If you actually listen to the question, you’ll see that the guy makes a lot of premises that have to be true for his question to make any sense, yet they are not.
Myers lets him rephrase his first premise and points out that it’s false. The question goes from “Well, homologous neural circuity occurs in the form of different developmental pathways” to “I have a lot of papers”. Sorry, but that IS disgraceful. If you ask a question that presupposes falsities, you’re either trying to pull some deceptive NLP stunt or just ignorant and deserve to be called out on that.
WINNER!! ::   +24
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 11:57 pm
@Clark ::
Aren’t you sad that the vote trolls loved you so hard?
So just to be clear :: you are arguing that PZ Myers isn’t an asshole? Because I think even PZ Myers wouldn’t argue that.
Assholes love being assholes.
[Reply]
# 5 October 2011 at 5:56 am

Jacques said:
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Man, you guys are pretty lame. Really, that about sums it up.
LOSER!! ::   -7
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 11:58 pm
@Jacques ::
… ur bad @ summing
[Reply]
# 5 October 2011 at 7:08 am

Bloggy said:
These guys are dropping like flies. Yaro is closing his “Blog Mastermind”.
Are these guys getting scared or did they just suck the MMO market dry? Or is it a little bit of both?
WINNER!! ::   +9
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 12:01 am
@Bloggy ::
They are way past scared :: and the MMO market will never run dry … dam it.
Do you see what I did there?
classic!
[Reply]
# 5 October 2011 at 7:24 am

Petroglyph Ontomancer said:
I gotta hand it to Naomi Dunford. She managed to derail the discussion well and good. It’s no longer about her tax evasion, exploitation, and fraud. Now it’s all atheists-versus-Christians and is-Salty-a-misogynist-hater and is-PZ-Myers-an-egotistical-windbag and slander this and libel that.
If only you hadn’t handed her the ammunition for that boo-hoo-I’m-being-picked-on-by-evil-misogynists thing.
‘Cuz I don’t see how going after PZ Myers is helping stomping on Net fraudsters.
WINNER!! ::   +20
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 12:12 am
@Petroglyph Ontomancer ::
Yeah :: it’s not helping … it totally annoys me I had to write this post {and whatever future posts I’ll have to write about it}.
I disagree about the Naomi part though … those outbursts made my point before I made my point. The reactions are often the most telling part of the story. My point was that she was scum … so she went off and proved that she was scum.
And the “droid is an evil hater” thing has been the lame defense since the beginning … it never worked … but by the time Dunford tried it it was just comical. A few days before she did it … Dave told me he was a fan.
[Reply]

Petroglyph Ontomancer Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 8:01 am
@SD, then perhaps you might want to consider letting this PZ Myers distraction drop? Or even better, to find some way of burying the hatchet, like maybe getting directly in touch with him, or through an intermediary, and explaining who you are and what you do?
Thing is, the atheist/skeptic/feminist etc. blogosphere is a natural ally. They don’t take kindly to exploitative unicorn-farmers peddling woo for money either. This war is doing a very good job of alienating them.
From where I’m at, this whole mess only happened because of trigger words. “Cow” for feminists. “Christian fundamentalist” for atheists. Naomi saw that opening and exploited it for all it’s worth. So her post went viral, everybody’s knees go jerk-jerk-jerk, nobody bothers to look any deeper, and the fight is on. The only one who’s happy about this is Naomi, because it takes the heat off her, even if only a little and only temporarily.
I hate to see this. It’s so unnecessary.
  -1
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 4:34 pm
@Petroglyph Ontomancer ::
The only one who’s happy about this is Naomi, because it takes the heat off her, even if only a little and only temporarily.
Naomi doesn’t care about “heat” … she cares about easy money … that’s over. So I doubt it’s possible for her to be any more unhappy than she is right now. She was trying to stop me from telling the world that she and Dave where having a sordid affair by reframing the situation … but the joke was on her … cause that wasn’t my story.
You are right that she pushed two easily viral buttons … and to good effect. But the only person who is happy about it is me. This thing is built to withstand just that sort of vicious reaction … and every time it happens the fake robot gets more powerful.
Any actual skeptics who clicked through on PZ’s post will get stuck here forever. Anyone who can’t figure it out … won’t be of any help anywayz.
And I am willing to “bury the hatchet” … my demands are obvious. PZ Myers will take down that post about Anthony Navarro … and he’ll issue an apology … or I’ll see him in hell.
[Reply]

Slowly Waking Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 10:14 pm
@SD,
“…or I’ll see him in hell.”
THAT would be funny!
Especially when he doubles down and denies he’s there.
  +6
[Reply]

Petroglyph Ontomancer Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 1:10 am
@SD, I hope he does that, and you do that. I wouldn’t rule it out; I have seen him admit to mistakes before. I don’t think he responds very well to threats and abuse; he’s plenty used to both, though. That’s why I thought approaching him personally (or through an intermediary) might work better.
One reason I respect you is that (1) you do your homework, and (2) you only go after real scumbags. That’s another reason this sidetrack bothers me. Whatever else PZ Myers is, he’s not a real scumbag like Dunford, Death Ray, Kilstein and the rest. This dulls the shine on your brilliant fake-robotic blast shields.
But that’s all life on the Internet, I suppose.
  -2
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 1:34 am
@Petroglyph Ontomancer ::
You’re leaving that comment on the wrong blog friend.
And there doesn’t need to be any “approaching” or “intermediaries” … I don’t talk to shitbags. And I don’t make threats either :: he can take down that post … or he can inspectify my relentlessness.
Only a “real scumbag” would react like PZ Myers has when he’s so obviously in the wrong. His little trolls can play dumb … and maybe they are dumb … but he knows he made an embarrassing mistake.

Wyrd Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 9:47 am
@Petroglyph Ontomancer,
I agree that Naomi has managed to seriously derail the discussion.
But I think @SD is handling it well. All in all, the longer it takes for the poop to hit the fan, the greater the inevitable poo-spray will be.
I came to this blog via Naomi’s “I’ve been death threated!” hijinks.
Initially, like all the other intellectual types, I was massively turned off by the nature of the Droid and this site. (Immediately referring to Naomi as a “cow” did not make me sympathetic.)
But there was the bit where @SD had no problems agreeing with Naomi that his site was a “mean site”. That intrigued me very much-ly. [sic] In most ranting, shit-spewing tirades, people don’t do that. In fact, they almost never concede a single point to the opposition, and that very tactic (i.e. feeling that to agree with the opposition on any point because they think it would show weakness) is what makes me so sure they’re full of poop.
@SD didn’t do that. He conceded Naomi’s point that his site constituted a “mean site” and so my brain turned on and I had to practice my critical thinking skills. It’s hard. It takes lots of effort and waaaaay too much time, but I did it anyway.
Then also, when I would write stuff in the comments, my comments didn’t all get minused to obscurity. Sure a few did, but most of them stayed at +0, +1 or +4 or something. And @SD responded to some of my comments and it was so weird that in the comments he would talk normally–well closer to normal.
So I clicked around all over the site. I learned and absorbed. And I came to understand that Naomi is totally full of shit and–sad to say–probably morally bankrupt. I really want to be wrong about that. I really want to find out that she’s not heartless and terrible, but the evidence keeps stacking up against her. You just have to be willing to look around for it.
* There’s the chat log between her and David
* There’s a voice recording of her at a conference
* There’s Naomi’s very direct connections to all the other known-to-be-scummy scammy Internet Marketers (generally I wouldn’t cite a guilt-by-association thing, but this is a “confidence game” thing–the whole point of the con is you get people to trust you, then you get people to repeatedly buy the same crap with different names from 20 different “joint venture” “business” partners)
* There’s a zillion quotes from her blog dug up by @Barbara. Now–if it was just those quotes on their own, I don’t know if that would be persuasive because you could always argue that they were taken out of context. But when you put them alongside the stuff @SD has…
what begins to emerge is what could be called a case against Naomi Dunford. And it just gets ickier and ickier.
And PZ stepped in it. IMHO, he really should’ve done his homework first.
–
Furry cows moo and decompress.
WINNER!! ::   +9
[Reply]
# 5 October 2011 at 7:25 am

louiszwu said:
I’m an atheist who believes in religious freedom…because that same freedom protects my right not to believe. As Americans, we enjoy certain rights, including the right to delude oneself. If that delusion comforts someone during a bad time, who am I to take it from them?
The curse of sentience allows us to imagine our end, and so we invented something to take the edge off. No big deal, really. But think about it. Wouldn’t eternal life get a tad boring after 1000 years or so? To me, that seems like a fate worse than death.
Religion is dying. Unfortunately, it will be a long, slow painful death.
WINNER!! ::   +12
[Reply]

FO Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 9:18 am
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@louiszwu, The delusion that comforts someone in bad days, is the same delusion that brings hatred for gays, fear of science and reality, the notion that if you “feel” that something is True (TM) then it is True for everybody and other nasty things.
Personally, I have no problems with such beliefs as long as those who hold them acknowledge that others need not to live by them.
Unfortunately this is not always the case.
LOSER!! ::   -6
[Reply]

Sean Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 2:54 am
@FO,
“Unfortunately this is not always the case.”
When negative expectations so easily roll off the tongue, they may provide a hint to one’s own deepest prejudices.
  +5
[Reply]
# 5 October 2011 at 7:28 am

what?? said:
It’s interesting how Meyers worded his post to include only Naomi Dunford’s view of the Navarro family situation…even though he considered her a ‘biased’ source. He states: ‘Dave Navarro decided to leave his marriage’ and ‘a man and woman can decide to dissolve the bonds of matrimony’. And leads his readers to believe that’s what all the fuss is about.
He leaves out the parts that have nothing to do with divorce. The parts where Dave quit a really good job, left his kids with no visible means of support, turned his back on the rest of his family, and just disappeared.
This is not the Dave his family knows and loves. If one of my siblings did all of these things, I can’t even imagine how worried I’d be.
It doesn’t matter what Anthony Navarro’s religious beliefs are in this situation. He’s a brother worried about his brother. And his brother’s kids.
WINNER!! ::   +18
[Reply]

Sharon Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 9:14 am
@what??, Paul Z. Myers is not interested in facts, his out of control, raging ego is only interesting in spitting venom on anyone who doesn’t support religious persecution. It’s amazing that the state of Minnesota subsidizes such an evil person at Myers. He is beyond despicable.
Muchly debated. What do you think?   +3
[Reply]

You're so silly Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 6:17 pm
@what??,
He leaves out the parts that have nothing to do with divorce. The parts where Dave quit a really good job, left his kids with no visible means of support, turned his back on the rest of his family, and just disappeared.
Why would you expect PZ to take issue with any of this? His espoused view of morality is relativistic.
If you ask a Christian why he thinks abortion is wrong, he might reply, “Why should we think anything is wrong?”
Funny thing is … PZ Meyers could probably give the same answer.
(Of course, I’m borrowing from PZ’s playbook here — I don’t know who he is nor do I have any facts to support this claim.)
  -2
[Reply]
# 5 October 2011 at 7:49 am

Shit Storm said:
Dave quit a really good job, left his kids with no visible means of support, turned his back on the rest of his family, and just disappeared.
…to get into business with Naomi Dunford selling lies and bullshit
This conversation is about how Naomi and Dave Navarro used people to line their pockets
How they steal and call it coaching
How they lied and called it education
…and when called out on their scam they attacked anyone who dared interupt their money stealing venture
…anyone who wants to weigh in on all this other bullshit is just trying to change the conversation from these very important facts
Good people are being ripped off and they don’t deserve it…and so will many more if we don’t do something to stop this
Naomi and Dave steal and need to be stopped…that is all that matters
WINNER!! ::   +27
[Reply]
# 5 October 2011 at 8:20 am

crassj said:
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Just to clarify something – scienceblogs piggybacks off the pharyngula brand – not the other way around. that’s why PZ has graciously agreed to continue writing some posts for SB as it transitions to a new owner.
The reason for that is he’s a righteous badass.
LOSER!! ::   -4
[Reply]

Morris Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 9:07 am
@crassj, You are correct that Paul Z. Myers is both BAD and an ASS. For a bastard like him, he probably would consider that a compliment.
Muchly debated. What do you think?   +2
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 12:24 am
@crassj ::
Cool :: I look forward to him not being at ScienceBlogs … it should be reserved for actual scientists.
And yeah :: not printing dissent is so super badass!
[Reply]
# 5 October 2011 at 8:25 am

research? said:
SD,
For someone who trumpets the amount of research and fact checking you do, you don’t appear to have done the most basic homework with this piece.
Let me help you:
1. One of the cruxes of your post is that the website is bullshitting about their traffic figures, based on your interpretation of their Alexa ranking.
2. A simple “view source” on the site’s homepage would have revealed a Quantcast pixel. I won’t patronise you by explaining what Quantcast is, other than to say they provide independent verification of traffic stats.
3. A visit to http://www.quantcast.com/freethoughtblogs.com shows that yes, they do get 150K pageviews (not visitors – but then they didn’t claim that) per day.
As for why you were receiving ads from our fresh-faced friend Mr. Burchard, I’d suggest it’s because they’re accepting ads served via behavioural retargeting like most Google Adsense publishers, and you have (not surprisingly) spent time on his site. Of course, I may be wrong, and he may be advertising directly, but based on the limited information I can glean, that’s my best guess.
Muchly debated. What do you think?   -2
[Reply]

ryan Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 11:19 am
@research?,
That 150k is per MONTH, not DAY.
Good maths, dude
WINNER!! ::   +7
[Reply]

research? Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 12:59 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@ryan,
Oh dear. It appears some of us are a bit slow on the uptake.
Let me break the Quantcast figures down, for the hard of thinking here.
At the top of the page, it says:
126.5K
Monthly US People
188.4K
Global People
That’s the number of people who visit the site. Each month. If you’re the sort of person who like to read scandalous websites, get overexcited, and jump to conclusions which will make you look foolish, you may think that’s the figure I’m talking about.
It’s not. They are VISITORS. I said PAGEVIEWS. I believe that the site in question claimed IMPRESSIONS, which is slightly different from pageviews, but nothing at all like visitors.
With me so far? Good.
Let’s look a little deeper. About 1/2 way down the page, you’ll see a heading that says “Traffic”. Under that there is a drop-down.
Select “Page-views”. They spell it with a hyphen, but don’t worry, it’s the same thing.
Now click the button that says “day”. You’ll a pretty graph, with a figure underneath that says “177K”.
That’s shorthand for 177,000, which you will hopefully understand is a higher number than 150,000.
NOW click the button that says “month”. If you’re sharp-eyed, you’ll see that the figure (and pretty graph) has changed. It now says “3.7M”. Meaning 3.7 Million Page Views Per Month.
Good maths, dude.
(and yes, if an adult has given you a calculator, you’ll have worked out that 3.7M / 30 isn’t equal to 177,000. That’s possibly a sampling artefact, but I couldn’t say for sure. You’ll have to take that up with Quantcast. Unlike some here, I’m not in the making-a-bunch-of-wild-shit-up-and-then-claiming-it-as-the-well-researched-truth business)
LOSER!! ::   -4
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 12:34 am
@research?
First :: don’t care.
Second :: that’s a load off my mind. Cause those numbers were on a sales page … and the prices were bug my eyes out high … so if the numbers were faked that would kinda be like … you know … a crime.
So I’m sure it’s all totally legit … let’s all make money online!! For the wolf!!
[Reply]
# 5 October 2011 at 8:34 am

BoreaMantid said:
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
You guys circlejerk as much as PZ’s crew. Maybe more…
Everyone in the world thinks that they are right, everyone else is wrong and that its fine to sacrifice your humanity to go on the offensive against the heathens.
There is no god greater than truth, and it cannot be found on the internet.
LOSER!! ::   -12
[Reply]

Wyrd Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 10:00 am
@BoreaMantid,
Brave words. Or something.
Are you skeptical of all claims to knowledge? Cool. Me too.
Please go check around this site. Ignore all the colons and bad language.
The Salty Droid is run by an actual person with an actual (I hate to say it) “mission”. He wants to point out the deeply fraudulent nature of the whole Internet Marketing biz, highlight how it so negatively impacts people’s lives (like Dave Navarro’s and Colleen Conaway’s), and where possible get the f*ckers that perpetrate these crimes (actual crimes not pretend crimes like being religious or being an atheist) prosecuted.
…
Sounds pretty cool to me! That’s why I like the Salty Droid.
According to @SD, P.Z. has the wrong spin on the Dave Navarro situation. And at this point, I’m inclined to SD’s position because it’s very clear that he has spent a lot more time researching this and because he’s actually talked–like for real with words and speaking and sound coming out of his mouth–with both Dave and Anthony Navarro.
IMHO, P.Z. was just shooting off his mouth like, “hey guys! Check it! Yet another crazy-religious-fundamentalist!!!!” And that’s all great and stuff, but P.Z. apparently neglected to do the research thingie. Oops.
I’ve actually been to Dave Navarro’s “business” site. (Yes he’s said he had to close due to “personal reasons”. Please remember that in the recent past, among other things, Dave quit his job, left his wife and children. So.. even if the claim that Anthony is a “crazy religious fundamentalist” were true, and this point, I certainly would not assert that it is, I think it’s safe to say that Dave has a lot of “personal” stuff going on right now.) He called himself “The Launch Coach” and sold .pdfs that he promised would help your Internet Business grow bunches and bunches. I’ve actually downloaded the purported “information product” .pdf he left his family to try and sell at $197 a piece.
Dave Navarro left his day-job and was touting himself as an Internet Marketing Guru and expert. But just like all the other people touting themselves as Internet Marketing Guru’s, Dave wasn’t any kind of expert on anything. He was in the process of trying to become an expert on tricking people into believing he was an expert so they would pay him lots of money so that he could stand there and tell them he was an expert.
Is your brain hurting yet?
This Dave Navarro situation is 50 shades of messy. You really shouldn’t comment on it until you do some actual research on it.
–
Furry cows moo and decompress.
WINNER!! ::   +20
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 12:39 am
@Wyrd ::
Actual research? Surely you jest … this is science … it’s all about winging it and pulling stuff out of your ass to impress That Kevin Smith … isn’t it?
[Reply]

Anonymous Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 4:00 pm
@Wyrd,
You nail it with this paragraph:
Dave Navarro left his day-job and was touting himself as an Internet Marketing Guru and expert. But just like all the other people touting themselves as Internet Marketing Guru’s, Dave wasn’t any kind of expert on anything. He was in the process of trying to become an expert on tricking people into believing he was an expert so they would pay him lots of money so that he could stand there and tell them he was an expert.
If you don’t mind I would like to simplify that whole paragraph
Tricking people into believing you had a skill and charging for that skill is fraud
..and Dave should go to jail…along with a whole bunch of other fraudsters
lying to make money is wrong (and illegal)…simple as that
looking the other way while they do it…has to change
  +6
[Reply]
# 5 October 2011 at 8:42 am

Wyrd said:
When I saw “PZ Myers” at the top of the article, my first thought was “wtf?”
Then in the body of the article I got to
Myers likes to think of himself as controversial :: but he’s really more like yesterday’s mosquito. I would have been quite content to continue ignoring his silly senselessness in perpetuity :: but then he decided to disgustingly attack Anthony Navarro based on the hype :: lies :: and religious hatred stirred up by a chubby fraud in a lame attempt to distract the web’s most undistractible fake robot.
And I had my “aha”.
But it’s all so depressingly sad. PZ has posted a brief “heads up” to his followers where he, of course, characterizes @SD and this whole saltydroid site as “some loony site.”
And, of course all the loyal “freethinking” skeptics of PZ briefly click over here, look around for 0.5 seconds, then gush-post over there about how evil things are over here.
You have to be willing to do research and actually think for yourself and stuff or else it isn’t really “skepticism” or “science” or “critical thinking”. Instead, it’s just the boring, standard, run-of-the-mill groupthink with different labels stuck on it.
–
Furry cows moo and decompress.
WINNER!! ::   +16
[Reply]

FO Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 9:27 am
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@Wyrd, I have been here for a few hours now.
Guys, you are telling tales to yourself, you believe in the strawmen you make up on your own…
For example, how do you know that PZ “likes to think he’s controversial?”
Did he wrote that, or something like that somewhere?
Can you read his mind?
I think you guys are not being fair.
While you may be right on many points, it is not easy to take seriously someone who is not even headed.
LOSER!! ::   -6
[Reply]

Glad I Was Broke Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 9:36 am
@FO,
You said: “For example, how do you know that PZ “likes to think he’s controversial?”
And I say: Who gives a fuck what he thinks of himself?
This post is not about creationism/evolution, MZ Myers traffic stats or whether or not he did good work in the past or doing it now.
The post is about him posting an article based on un-verified research that causes harm to a REAL HUMAN FAMILY.
Let me repeat that:
The post is about him posting an article based on un-verified research that causes harm to a REAL HUMAN FAMILY.
Can you people finally get it?
WINNER!! ::   +19
[Reply]

Clark Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 9:56 am
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@Glad I Was Broke,
Then keep it about that.
I think I could have actually enjoyed discussing the Navarro story, because I usually agree with Myers but I thought SD had a point here.
But the topic is just not about that. It’s whether Myers is a scientist or not, whether atheists should openly attack faith or not, whether people need religion or not and whether Myers gets a lot of traffic or not.
While I enjoyed the unwarranted attention my few posts got, this is just shameful and boring. There’s people on both sides of the Navarro issue I’d like to hear out, and yet I already know that it’ll be impossible to turn this into a meaningful conversation, as both view the other side as idiots to be ignored or made fun of.
LOSER!! ::   -6
[Reply]

Glad I Was Broke Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 10:19 am
@Clark,
1) The original post is just about the Navarro family.
2) There is plenty of information of this site regarding the issue. A simple search for “Dave Navarro” will turn up all you need and then some.
3) It does not matter if MZ Myers were a Scientologist, Anti-Abortion activist or Mother Theresa herself, he would have gotten the same treatment from SD for running his mouth about something he does not understand or care to research.
P.S. To save MZ Myers trouble, I’ll vote down myself.
WINNER!! ::   +18
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 12:51 am
@Glad I Was Broke ::
Claps!
@Clark ::
Shut up already. I’m giving PZ Myers shit where I think it will most annoy him … like I always do.
Fat jokes aren’t really going to do the trick for a self-righteous atheist wannabe scientist type. Hypocrisy :: group think :: being no better than those he looks down his nose at :: being intellectually weak but trying to pose as something else among those that don’t know any better :: etc. Criticism is easy … people who don’t want to hear mine should stay the fuck away from the people I’m here to protect.
Anyone who knows how this blog works knew that this was coming as soon as he posted that shit.
Jesus man … follow along.
[Reply]

Chance Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 9:48 am
@FO, Try, CONFRONTATIONAL, according to Wikipedia (file saved). In other words, Myers is a known hostile asshole.
Muchly debated. What do you think?   +1
[Reply]

Wyrd Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 10:36 am
@FO,
For example, how do you know that PZ “likes to think he’s controversial?”
Of the various claims made here to take issue with, this seems like an odd choice. But no matter.
I’m a skeptic and a non-believer type. So I’ve heard of P.Z. before. He has a reputation for being very caustic towards religion and religious types and he is very unapologetic about it.
I have not personally claimed that P.Z. “likes to think he’s controversial.” Based on his reputation could I make that claim? Yeah, I think I could. I wouldn’t but I could.
Here’s what I’ll claim instead: P.Z. makes lots of claims that many religious people would consider controversial, and he seems unconcerned by it.
I think you guys are not being fair.
Probably not. Me, for my part, I try to be fair always.
IMHO, I don’t believe that P.Z. tries to be fair. I certainly don’t believe P.Z. did his homework with regards to the Dave Navarro thing.
The Salty Droid/SD? I don’t think he tries to be fair either. But he does try to gather evidence and information, and the bad guys he goes after are like actually bad as in criminal not pretend bad like being religious or being an atheist.
See, the thing is–being fair and neutral? Yeah well it doesn’t tend to generate nearly as much traffic. So sensationalism wins the day as it always has.
If P.Z. really feels that SD has done him some major damage, he can always sue or whatever.
Personally, I think all that will come from this particular controversy is that both sites will win by getting more page views. I just hope Dave Navarro doesn’t “lose”.
The real issue is that Jason (the Salty Droid) is worried that Dave Navarro (a real person) might do something drastic and kill himself. That would be bad.
And all this because Dave believed in the very false myth that it’d be a good idea for him to quit his job and go after the unicorn dream of BIG INTERNET MONIEZ1!! { and you can too! } (but please don’t)
P.S. @SD: I’m sorry, I feel like I’m copying your style more and more. It’s just so darn catchy!
–
Furry cows moo and decompress.
WINNER!! ::   +17
[Reply]

FO Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 12:57 am
@Wyrd, All this I can agree with.
  -2
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 1:05 am
@FO ::
For example, how do you know that PZ “likes to think he’s controversial?”
Did he wrote that, or something like that somewhere?
Can you read his mind?
I think you guys are not being fair.
I hope at some point in our relationship you’ll start looking at my research before you demand that I do some. But since you’re new I’ll nurse you along.
Here’s PZ Myers regarding PZ Myers on a post about the new FreeThoughtsBlog :: conveniently linked to above in my unfair :: unresearched :: post …
PZ Myers has built one of the most popular atheist blogs in the world. Never one to shy away from controversy, Myers has built an astonishing following over the last few years and has traveled around the world speaking to skeptical audiences.
Happy now?
[Reply]
# 5 October 2011 at 9:07 am

not-PZ Myers said:
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Hi. My name is not-PZ Myers, and my well-considered strategy to reply to this post is to personally vote down all the comments on this post that support its content. I mean, this conversation about PZ Myers is hateful…or worse…therefore: down votes.
Also, my not-fake identity will heretofore be known as “research?”, and all reply posts will be vigorously up-voted by me, personally. After all, if you don’t love your own posts…how can you expect anyone else to love your posts? All in all, a not-brilliant attempt to make SD appear unpopular on his own blog. As my not-pseudonym would indicate, I didn’t do my research on your blog to see how many people love it, read it, and engage on it. But I’m always up for exercises in futility.
If you’d like to continue this conversation, feel free to hit up actual-PZ Myers here – http://twitter.com/#!/pzmyers
LOSER!! ::   -6
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 12:58 am
@not-PZ Myers ::
I’d love to hit you up on the twitters :: but of course I’m banned.
It’s like the difference between saying that your controversial :: and actually being controversial.
PZ Myers so wishes he could get banned … but no … that’s all me … suck it old man!!
[Reply]
# 5 October 2011 at 9:37 am

Jennifer said:
Wow. I clicked on this site from a news story about some atheist group ringleader launching attacks on religious groups from a college campus. I thought, no way. But after reading the comments here, I have to say, I am really shocked. Attacking people because of their religion is a hate crime!
WINNER!! ::   +8
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 1:09 am
@Jennifer ::
I’m not sure it’s a hate crime :: but it’s fucked :: and lame.
[Reply]

You're so silly Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 6:39 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@Jennifer,
Attacking people because of their religion is a hate crime!
Whereas attacking people just because is an act of love.
LOSER!! ::   -5
[Reply]
# 5 October 2011 at 9:40 am

RoseFromTheDead said:
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Dude :: what’s :: with :: all :: the :: double :: colons??
Where did you learn English?
LOSER!! ::   -9
[Reply]

Carol Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 10:37 am
@RoseFromTheDead, He is a legal eagle, so maybe his style is influenced by his…law degree? There is a bio and such if you care to do a little…reading…you might even learn that this is one out of say, ONE blogs over the past few years that has actually managed to expose some major scam operations that even the government wasn’t able to piece together. Lots of juicy private recordings, legal documents, etc. for your investigatory entertainment. If you want to get what the “mainstream media” isn’t showing you, you’ll find plenty of goods here.
Muchly debated. What do you think?   +4
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 1:10 am
@RoseFromTheDead ::
It’s called awesometown :: welcome to it!
[Reply]
# 5 October 2011 at 10:07 am

Rex the Wonder God said:
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
I have had nothing but trouble with this P.Z. Myers character, from the very first moment when he posted that I don’t exist. R U kidding? This is I he’s on about, I who wrote one of the all time best sellers, then made even more off the sequel as I got more consistent and learned to stick with killer themes like zombies (Can’t go wrong with adding a few zombies. I, however, showed restraint in only using one, but I turned him into a Nordic Fabio wetdream working in not-for-profit food and health care distribution, and folks seemed to have really cottoned to the character. Then a made another huge pile off yet another for the swarthy set – widening the demo, naturally – but this time I dumped the zombie theme and went with seances; people eat that stuff up. My latest one I set in the U.S., a very hot market at the time, and went with the sex angle: male lingerie, multiple chicks, and lots of basketball and cold showers; that one’s done so well, there’s now not one, but count ‘em, two of my fans currently in the hunt for president of these United States. Yes, it’s true I went with hiring other writers to do the, you know, writing part; but that’s just S.O.P. in having to respond to the demands and realities of commercial marketing folks: James Patterson does the exact. same. thing.
Anyway, I want to thank all you here for doing your best to go after this P.Z. Myers character, because he’s hurting sales (and converts, too; oh yeah, I should have mentioned this very successful side racket I have in direct-contact pyramid marketing, modeled on some real success some of my advance crew had with Amway; you would never imagine what ridiculous amounts of money people are willing to pay for re-packaged cut-rate Chinese and Mexican made soap).
LOSER!! ::   -8
[Reply]
# 5 October 2011 at 10:36 am

Barbara said:
It’s nice to see PZ Myers GasBag sent his devoted followers here, I guess even though you’ve “seen through” the lies and distortions of faith you still have to believe in something…so you’ve chosen PZ!
Let’s see how real scholars view PZ:
“Another scholar who has attacked PZ is Chris Mooney, an ardent Darwin lobbyist and an outspoken defender of left-leaning politics. In his recent book Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future, Mooney co-writes:
“The most outspoken New Atheists publicly eviscerate believers, call them delusional and irrational (“demented fuckwits,” as [P.Z.] Myers put it in the Webster Cook case), and in some cases do not spare more liberal religionists, or even more conciliatory fellow scientists and atheists, from withering denunciation. … If the goal is to create an America more friendly toward science and reason, the combativeness of the New Atheists is strongly counterproductive. (p. 97)”
************************************************************************
So, let’s review:
PZ has done no original work in his discipline.
PZ has not published since 2002.
PZ is reviled by real academics.
PZ teaches at a third rate academic institution.
PZ’s idea of debate is to call his opponents fuckwits.
PZ helps create a more hostile environment towards science.
PZ can’t get on or off a fake dinosaur without a team of helpers.
Keep the faith! Believing in PZ beats a blank…I guess.
WINNER!! ::   +16
[Reply]

Anonymous Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 11:19 am
@Barbara,
I feel a little dirty about saying this (because it’s so grade-school of me)
But over on pharyngula, Gregory Greenwood says
someone called ‘Barbara’ seems to be a particularly good example of the frothing-at-the-mouth religious kook type
So, I thought you might want to know about that. Because I don’t think you’re a “frothing-at-the-mouth religious kook type”.
I think you’re pretty cool.
But at the same time, for some of those early “anti-P.Z.” links you found, if any of them came from pro-creationist sources, then those don’t really count. Creationist web sites are not reliable sources of information particularly when the subject is a dyed-in-the-wool “evolutionist”.
–
Furry cows moo and decompress.
WINNER!! ::   +9
[Reply]

Barbara Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 11:55 am
@, Well, Becky from the transgendered site isn’t a creationist, nor is Charlotte Allen whom I quoted from the L.A. Times. I also quoted from PZ’s own blog, Discover magazine blog, the course catalogue from PZ’s college in Morris. I can’t remember where the account of the Scottish pub “debate” was that I quoted from but all of these accounts of PZ Myer’s behavior had mutiple sources. I read several accounts of that incident before I grabbed a quote.
My own beliefs are simple enough to describe. I’m an agnostic, I do not believe in a Creator God. However I am a Buddhist whose beliefs are most compatible with those described in Stephen Batchelor’s excellent book “Buddhism Without Beliefs”. Batchelor stresses the importance of the agnostic imperative in Buddhism with which I emphatically agree and says it’s possible to be a Buddhist without believing in rebirth.
However I have a great deal of respect and love for certain aspects of religion. I’ve visited the Abbey of Gethsemane and read and treasured the writings of Thomas Merton. I’ve visited cathedrals in France and undertaken two temple tours in Japan. I firmly believe in doing my best to live an ethical life and that’s why I see the Salty Droid as a kindred spirit. I admire his tenacity and dedication and his efforts to help families who have been harmed. What he did for Colleen Conaway’s family was inspiring.
As far as frothing at the mouth, well, usually only about grammar or word usage. Two of my pet hatreds are people who write “tow the line” when of course they mean “toe” and using the expression “chomping at the bit” when the correct word is “champing”. Then I do foam.
WINNER!! ::   +22
[Reply]

Whatthewhat Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 8:49 pm
@Barbara, Holy crap! I never realized “religious kooks” were merely articulate, reasonable people with an open mind about religious thought, strives to be moral, and does her own independent research before forming an opinion. I want to be a religious kook too.
Of all the comments on this post I find it hilarious that they singled you out. Unless I missed something I think this is the first time you even mentioned your own thoughts/beliefs on religion. Perhaps “freethinking” over in PZ land means “free to think about reality in any warped way that meets your own particular bias regardless of the truth of the matter.”
At any rate, keep doing what you do. I look forward to your comments and all the additional information you bring here on whatever topic is being discussed.
And to the PZ trolls: This is about Mr. PZ publishing lies from a dubious source about a man who underwent an extremely difficult family situation. I find it very telling that none of you are taking up THAT point when you come here and argue. I know it’s been said before but it clearly needs repeating. This post, this site, is not about religion. This post is about Anthony Navarro and the malicious lies Mr. PZ published about him.
WINNER!! ::   +14
[Reply]

Anna Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 9:53 pm
@Barbara,
PZ has done no original work in his discipline.
PZ has not published since 2002.
PZ is reviled by real academics.
PZ teaches at a third rate academic institution.
PZ’s idea of debate is to call his opponents fuckwits.
PZ helps create a more hostile environment towards science.
PZ can’t get on or off a fake dinosaur without a team of helpers.
I’m with you on:
No original work in his discipline
Has not published since 2002
Is reviled by real academics
His idea of debate is to call his opponents fuckwits
Helps create a more hostile environment towards science
And “can’t get on or off a fake dinosaur without a team of helpers” is just hilarious.
I’m less concerned with his teaching appointment at what you term “a third rate academic institution.” Not every school can be Harvard, Georgetown or Stanford. Heck, at the University of Wisconsin, we have James Thomson, stem cell researcher extraordinaire, but we also had Kevin Barrett… A lot of professors who want to teach more than they want to do research end up on the faculties at smaller schools. I can only hope the University of Minnesota at Morris lets Myers go. Or if tenure is an issue, and it likely is, that his colleagues take a good hard look at his record and his activities. It’s hard to stay if you’re not wanted. But then I guess he’d have to find somewhere else that would take him…
  +6
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 1:21 am
@Anna ::
I agree that there’s no reason to hate on UMM … except that they employ a disgusting bastard like PZ Myers.
And also Wisconsin is a great school … better than fucking Georgetown that’s for sure.
Saying that makes me happy for reasons I won’t go into.
[Reply]
# 5 October 2011 at 10:43 am

Ryan said:
Does it seem to anybody else like some 3rd party is coming in and downvoting pretty much every comment from every side? The only real “WINNER!” comment i’ve seen here is one about how atheism will kill religion and religion will die a slow painful death.
Seems to me like PZ Myers sent his army of not-god over here.
WINNER!! ::   +7
[Reply]

Barbara Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 11:26 am
@Ryan,
Of course he has because the “liberal” PZ Myers will not tolerate dissent. He also doesn’t tolerate the transgendered, Catholics, those of the Jewish faith, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists and even other atheists who dare to openly disaprove of PZ’s desecration of a host. And he’s a victim-always-of something or somebody.
As Charlotte Allen wrote:
“My problem with atheists is their tiresome — and way old — insistence that they are being oppressed and their fixation with the fine points of Christianity. Read Dawkins, or Hitchens, or the works of fellow atheists Sam Harris (“The End of Faith”) and Daniel Dennett (“Breaking the Spell”), or visit an atheist website or blog (there are zillions of them, bearing such titles as “God Is for Suckers,” “God Is Imaginary” and “God Is Pretend”), and your eyes will glaze over as you peruse — again and again — the obsessively tiny range of topics around which atheists circle like water in a drain.
First off, there’s atheist victimology: Boohoo, everybody hates us ‘cuz we don’t believe in God. Although a recent Pew Forum survey on religion found that 16% of Americans describe themselves as religiously unaffiliated, only 1.6% call themselves atheists, with another 2.4% weighing in as agnostics (a group despised as wishy-washy by atheists). You or I might attribute the low numbers to atheists’ failure to win converts to their unbelief, but atheists say the problem is persecution so relentless that it drives tens of millions of God-deniers into a closet of feigned faith, like gays before Stonewall.”
WINNER!! ::   +9
[Reply]

Kevin Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 11:42 am
@Barbara, That guy is obsessed with tearing people down and stomping them into the ground. He takes bigotry and hate to new heights.
Here’s his twitter if you want to see his loathsome ego in something closer to “unreal time:”
http://twitter.com/#!/pzmyers
WINNER!! ::   +7
[Reply]

VJ Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 11:46 am
@Ryan, It will be addressed, and reversed. In the meantime, it serves a purpose, because it shows how low his flying monkeys will go, and people need to see that. He’s about to get some major negative coverage, and that won’t make him look good.
  +2
[Reply]
# 5 October 2011 at 11:08 am

Barbara said:
Anyone who would defend PZ Myers after he did this is sick and twisted. Sacrilege is a serious subject. When the Taliban blew up the historic Buddhas of Bamiyan the civilized world was sickened by their intolerance. PZ Myers intolerance of Catholicism is just as vile.
From the Los Angeles Times:
“Then there’s P.Z. Myers, biology professor at the University of Minnesota’s Morris campus, whose blog, Pharyngula, is supposedly about Myers’ field, evolutionary biology, but is actually about his fanatical propensity to label religious believers as “idiots,” “morons,” “loony” or “imbecilic” in nearly every post. The university deactivated its link to Myers’ blog in July after he posted a photo of a consecrated host from a Mass that he had pierced with a rusty nail and thrown into the garbage (“I hope Jesus’ tetanus shots are up to date”) in an effort to prove that Catholicism is bunk — or something.”
The brave and daring PZ wrote July 8, “Can anyone out there score me some consecrated communion wafers?… if any of you would be willing to do what it takes to get me some, or even one, and mail it to me, I’ll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare…I will treat it with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web.”
This is a vile and childishly stupid act and it’s completely cowardly. PZ Myers is a loathsome bigot. There’s no defense or rationale for this hateful act, anymore than there is putting on a white sheet and hood.
WINNER!! ::   +14
[Reply]

pelamun Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 12:41 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@Barbara,
Talk about disingenuous. You should have given the source for your LA Times article. It was an op-ed by Charlotte Allen, on the OPINION page. It generated a lot of reactions, starting with this piece
http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2009/05/atheists-respond-to-charlotte-allen.html
LOSER!! ::   -9
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 1:29 am
@pelamun ::
Yeah what kind of source is the LA Times … let’s all just start sourcing Naomi Dunford for everything instead.
Cause she either dropped out of high school :: or dropped out of college … depending on which of her versions of reality you want to accept.
[Reply]

Shorty Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 3:51 pm
@Barbara,
Wow, stabbing a wafer. I can see why his followers thing he’s such a “badass” … LOL! As Bugs Bunny would say, “What a maroon!”
  +6
[Reply]
# 5 October 2011 at 11:12 am

Rev. BDC said:
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Barbara how about you post the details of why he did that?
LOSER!! ::   -6
[Reply]

Alley-Cat Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 1:29 pm
@Rev. BDC,
Good point
However Meyers didn’t give a lot of details about the background behind the Navarro post…
Just basically that he was a religious nutter, evil scumbag and a fuckwit….
Can’t have the wife drunk and the wine bottle full (Northern Italian saying)
;)
WINNER!! ::   +13
[Reply]
# 5 October 2011 at 11:22 am

"crapface" said:
Just submitted this on his blog post about you:
“I don’t see anything Religious about the salty droid website… unless you guys use that as a synonym for “accurate” over here….
maybe you should have an english professor “guest blog” on here about how to use the word religious, the definition of a hate crime, and how to do research for writing. i hear guest blogging makes you lots of internet monies, and you can get more of the free traffics so you can charge more to advertise here, even though you already claim you get 30x more page views then you actually get.
word.”
something tells me he won’t publish it :(
….all because i’m a crazy fundamentalist christian, clearly.
damn censorship.
WINNER!! ::   +10
[Reply]

joggler Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 1:06 pm
@”crapface”, It was published.
  +1
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 1:35 am
@”crapface” ::
I haven’t really made it over there yet today … but I see he called me an OCD kook or something.
So germane … I’m deeply hurt.
[Reply]
# 5 October 2011 at 11:25 am

A Crazy Fundamentalist Christian said:
Thank God I won’t have to deal with PZ Myers and his followers in the afterlife, cause they’ll all be in hell.
DOWNVOTE THIS IF YOU’RE A SUPER BADASS INTERNET ATHEIST SCIENTIST CHRISTIAN HATER BLOG READER
this is the most fucking pathetic comment thread i’ve ever seen on the salty droid. There are more PZ Myers sheeple here then there are SD readers.
Muchly debated. What do you think?   -1
[Reply]

mirele Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 12:25 pm
@A Crazy Fundamentalist Christian,
I voted you down not because I don’t think PZ Myers isn’t an obnoxious blowhard, but because you claim to know Myers’ eternal fate. You’re not God, and last time I checked, God wasn’t exactly giving out clues on the afterlife to all comers.
Mr. Fake Robot:
I have read both yours and PZ’s sites. When I saw PZ’s post about the Navarros, I couldn’t believe what I was reading. But, after thinking about it a while, I realized that PZ didn’t really care about the scam that Dave’s been pulling or that he left his family for *gack* Natalie, but that Dave’s *religious* family was bitching about it! And because their religion plays an important role in their lives, and informs how they think, this is bad, per PZ, so of course he sides with the scammeisters! So, of course, ripping people off for bogus products is not even a consideration for PZ, because the people concerned for Dave Navarro are RELIGIOUS.
Hell’s bells, I’m pretty freaking agnostic in the religion department and what counts for me is the truth. I also don’t think religion is the worst of all evils (and for some people it may be a good solution, but it wasn’t for me), as PZ and his ilk obviously do believe. What I think is worse is promoting falsehood and lies because the person is being “harassed” by his “religious” family and friends and not taking into account the background of the entire situation.
PZ, if you read this, I have read your blog on and off for quite a long time. No more. I won’t be going there. Because you’ve shown me that you don’t have the fucking ability to review the totality of the evidence. Instead, your bias is that religion is always bad, and siding with an Internet rip-off artist and his girlfriend over against his family who just happens to be religious is unbelievable. Let me rent you a clue, buster: just because the guy has a religious family that is asking him to come home and think about his life and get out of the demonstrable rip-off racket he’s running does not mean you should support him. In fact, you shouldn’t. But I don’t expect that you’re going to change your mind any time soon, because to you, if it involves religion, it’s always, irrevocably wrong. That, PZ, is just FUCKED.
WINNER!! ::   +21
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 2:00 am
@mirele ::
I never thought much of PZ Myers because I really love reading about biology and he does it a diservice … but still … I was pretty surprised. I mean a month later? After the shit storm? After 75,000 words worth of comments?
I totally understood with That Kevin Smith :: twas a fucked up story she told … and if she hadn’t been lying it was a pretty cool thing for him to do … a thing most useful if done with alacrity.
But a month later … no. And he linked to her grossest story … and one of the grossest things I’ve witnessed here. When she printed that … I was sitting right here at this computer trying to decide if I was gonna link to the murder story or not. I had concerns about it … and about Alison … it was one of the things I talked to Anthony about. It’s such a private and painful thing … I’m not sure if I would have done it.
But then she did it … and I quite literally almost threw up. I mean … how fucking dare she? There haven’t been many moments when Jason had to get up and walk it off … but that was one of them.
In the next post she asks for money … after deciding it would be inappropriate to launch a frauduct called “Same People, More Money”.
Then he links to her … a month later. Crazytown … and yeah … FUCKED.
[Reply]
# 5 October 2011 at 11:36 am

Cosmic Connie said:
Oops, I’m late to the party as usual. I hadn’t even had a chance to catch up on the conversation about the late Don Lapre…and now here’s a new post.
I was a fan of PZ, and have enjoyed his site on occasion in the past. But when he starts attacking my very favorite fake robot, I seriously have to re-evaluate. PZ, SD is no clown, nor is his operator Jason, and I have a feeling you aren’t gonna win this one. There’s definitely far more to the Navarro story than the spin you’ve put on it.
Truly, I am no fan of organized religion. I’m a devout agnostic and have been for many years, and also for many years I have generally felt more comfortable with skeptics and free-thinkers than with the true-belief camp. But I have to agree that sometimes atheists (and, alas, some so-called skeptics) can be as insufferably self-righteous as the most zealous fundamentalist. That makes me uncomfortable.
In general, I think it’s far better to stick with snarking about the criminals and cult leaders — secular or ecclesiastical — than to attack everyday believers, though when it comes to McSpirituality believers I have been known to violate my own rules. What do you know… I can be as insufferably self-righteous as anyone else. Mea culpa.
Anyway, thanks for another eye-opening post, @SD.
WINNER!! ::   +14
[Reply]

hrmmm Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 12:51 pm
@Cosmic Connie, anyone who is 100% COMPLETELY CERTAIN about the existence or nonexistence of god just makes me uncomfortable. Anyone that sure of their own understanding of the greatest mystery in the universe must be an egomaniac on some level. It’s one thing to believe, but even believers have doubt. I think a certain amount of doubt is healthy, and essential to being a truly critical thinker.
WINNER!! ::   +14
[Reply]

pelamun Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 1:11 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@hrmmm,
the idea of 100% certainty if God exists is a misunderstanding about what atheism is. In science, there can never be 100% evidence that something does not exist. Thus, the burden of proof is on the person claiming the existence of an entity. So if you say God exists, the burden of proof is on you. Until now, nothing has held up to scientific scrutiny.
LOSER!! ::   -8
[Reply]

hrmmm Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 4:27 pm
@pelamun, thank you for schooling me on science, internet dude.
  +6
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 2:07 am
@hrmmm ::
:)
Now aren’t you glad you started hanging with us??
You’re fitting right in.
[Reply]
# 5 October 2011 at 12:07 pm

Barbara said:
Minnesota Public Radio May 31 2011Stephen Smith interviews PZ Myers:
Myers: Yes, it’s having the opportunity to express yourself at length. What you can do is, what’s really wonderful about it to those of us with an ego is that when you’re writing it, no one is interrupting you. You get to put out all your thoughts right there and you get to lay them out however you want. Then you push that last little button and send it out there for people to stare at. It’s very different from what commenters experience, so people are sitting there writing things. What you’re doing when you’re commenting is you’re making a little short comment on something. Then somebody else will say something, and somebody else and somebody else. It will cascade that way.
But with the blog itself, you form a unit. You get to just say, “Here’s what I think and I am more important than you, so this is what you get to read.”
Smith: Because it’s my blog.
Myers: It’s mine, yes. [laughs]
Myers: I’m buddies with a lot of the big shot new atheists, people like Richard Dawkins and Dan Dennett.
Smith: What about the people who don’t agree with you? How many do you suppose are out there reading you regularly?
Myers: Oh, lots, yeah. It’s an interesting phenomenon, though. The way I run the blog is extremely open. I try not to censor at all and so people can say anything they want.
Myers: Why, yes, I once desecrated a communion wafer. Boy, that blew up. [laughs] And that’s what gets people riled up. Many people self identify very strongly with their personal religion.
Smith: Well, that’s been observed for a long time.
Myers: Yes, and it’s very unfortunate. We’ve got to break people of this.
***************************************************************************
That’s a massive fucking ego he has, “I am more important than you” and the pathetic sycophantical stylings of PZ when he brags ” I’m buddies with the big shots!”
And he claims he “tries not to censor at all” but I guess sometimes Little Paul can’t help himself. People CAN say anything they want….as long as they agree with PZ.
And why does he feel it’s up to him to “break people of this”? Fucking fascist, who died and left him God?
WINNER!! ::   +13
[Reply]

pelamun Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 1:06 pm
@Barbara,
OK, I’ll bite.
1. you do not seem to know a thing about how Pharyngula works. There are a number of things that can you get banned from there, but mere disagreement of opinion with PZ Myers or the blog community is not it. But independent of that:
A blog owner is by definition the most important person on a blog. They can decide anything they want about the blog. That’s probably what he was referring to in the first paragraph. The same for this website. The people running this website can write whatever they want, treat comments however they want. Censorship is commonly defined as a government action, and the government is barred from doing that by the First Amendment. If you make a racist remark at work, the First Amendment will not save you from being fired from it, same thing for a blog commentator. The Pharyngula community explicitly trusts PZ to maintain a high level of free, robust discussion. Many would leave otherwise.
2. “Big shots”: without listening to the interview, I wouldn’t be able to tell the tone, but in any case, he is a big name in the atheist community. Many big atheist events have him, and Richard Dawkins as featured speakers, and there are probably half a dozen more. The Amazing Meeting in Las Vegas, the convention about to start in Houston etc.
3. “break people of this”: you might be upset about that, but in this country, the default is still Christians trying to witness to strangers and save their souls. Just try to see things from the other side for a change. If Christians are allowed to proselytize, atheists can do the same and try to deconvert people. Nothing to do with fascism.
4. “crackergate”: legally speaking, no crime was committed. Those who have been using the term “hate crime” should check first what that is. Now, as Rev. BDC has asked you already, since you brought the topic up, why do you not explain the background to it too?
Muchly debated. What do you think?   -1
[Reply]

pelamun Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 1:13 pm
@pelamun,
2. “big shots”: “there are probably half a dozen more”, by which I meant “speakers of a similar international standing in the atheist community”
  -3
[Reply]

Yakaru Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 1:29 pm
@Barbara,
Sorry, but these ad hominem attacks on Myers won’t solve anything. He screwed up badly on his post about Anthony Navarro, and that is the only thing that’s relevant here. Everything else is a distraction from that.
I suggest anyone who has private difficulties with other aspects of Myers’ blog go there instead and discuss it.
Muchly debated. What do you think?   -3
[Reply]

Barbara Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 4:01 pm
@Yakaru,
Since this blog is named The Salty Droid don’t you think it’s up to him to tell me to cease and desist? When he does, I will bow out.
In any event my comments are being “pharyngulated” and hidden so may I suggest you just don’t click them open?
Yes, he did screw up on Anthony Navarro but unlike you I don’t think it was an isolated incident on his part.
The desecration of a Catholic host, the verbal abuse of a transgendered woman, are other “screw ups” of PZ Myers. Some people may choose to see the abuse of a symbol that’s very important to millions of people, (as the Communion host is to Catholics), as an act that advances the cause of science. I don’t.
WINNER!! ::   +16
[Reply]

pelamun Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 4:33 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@Barbara,
again, if you choose to bring up the crackergate incident over and over again, you should educate yourself about the background. It had nothing to do with advancing the cause of science..
Also tell us, where PZ Myers verbally abused a transgendered woman. Like the actual quote of what he allegedly said, with a linked source. You linked to the blog of someone who was banned from Pharyngula and surely has an axe to grind (even though the ban was a year ago, her blog since then has mostly been about PZ Myers)
Again, you choose to ignore facts that are inconvenient to your agenda.
LOSER!! ::   -4
[Reply]

Whatthewhat Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 9:04 pm
@pelamun, I have to ask, what specifically about the background of this “cracker gate” are you asking her to get educated on? From what I have seen Barbara posted that PZ himself admitted that he desecrated communion wafer and that PZ specifically requested that someone send him a consecrated communion wafer so that he could “gleefully” desecrate it. I’m not sure I really need to know anymore than that. Do you deny these two facts?
Also, please note that this post is about the fact that PZ published malicious and hurtful lies about an individual and based his article on a dubious source and alleged scammed.
  +6
[Reply]

Lanna Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 2:57 am
@Whatthewhat,
I think this is the crackergate background pelamun wants us to know:
In 2008, Catholic-raised University of Central Florida student and student Senate member Webster Cook pocketed a consecrated communion wafer instead of swallowing it during a Catholic mass on UCF’s campus. The Catholic Campus Ministry people told him it was a violation of their bro code to spit instead of swallow, but Cook took the wafer and ran. (Later, the student Senate voted 33-2 to impeach him for acting like a douchebag.)
In response, the Catholic League went apeshit, saying Cook was “taking the Body of Christ hostage,” and called for Cook’s expulsion from the public university.
In response, PZ Myers went apeshit and asked readers to send him a consecrated wafer. Once he had one, he stabbed it with a rusty nail and photographed it.
In 2010, Christian husband of ten years and father of three Dave Navarro pocketed Internet Marketing unicorn moniez instead of project managering at Lockheed Martin. His son told him it was a violation of their bro code to abandon his family, but Dave had already taken a laptop and run. (Later, his family decided to have him evaluated by psychology and medical professionals for acting like a douchebag.)
In response, his Christian brother Anthony went apeshit, saying Dave was “pursuing illicit gold at the expense of the family,” and called him out on a public website.
In response, PZ Myers went apeshit and asked his readers to buy this shit from compulsive liar Naomi Dunford. Once he had them, he skewered Dave’s brother with an alleged email in which Anthony allegedly told Dave, “You are guilty of the same sin as our mother and it cost her her life in the end,” and frames that as blaming their mother for her own murder.
WINNER!! ::   +11

Anonymous Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 9:42 pm
@Lanna,
Nicely done.
  +2

SD Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 2:17 am
@Yakaru ::
Dude :: seriously?
Barbara pulling in extra info that I would never have time to go find myself is “ad hominem” … are you seriously seriously?
In fact :: it’s like the greatest thing ever.
And PZ’s reaction to his own HUGE error has made me think maybe he’s much more like my normal targets than I had anticipated.
I suggest you unhitch your wagons post haste.
[Reply]
# 5 October 2011 at 12:37 pm

Alley-Cat said:
I went over to Meyers’ site and had a little troll. It was fun, they came running and buzzing around like flies around shit.
Apparently I may get banned, or have my posting privileges removed. What’s really scary is that my name could be in a dungeon!!
Here’s the full list of the possible “punishments”:
“Warnings….
Disemvoweling….
Banning. Serious misbehavior or a frequent habit of derailing whole threads, or committing a banworthy offense, will get your posting privileges removed, and your name will be entered in the dungeon. I log everyone who gets banned, as a warning to others….
Banning and comment deletion….
Banning, deletion, and public exposure….”
Public exposure??? Does that mean they are going to come around and pull my willy out while I’m walking down the street?
“What are the banworthy offenses?
Don’t do any of these things.
Impersonating other users….
Sockpuppetry….
Violating privacy….
Proselytizing….
Spamming….
Trolling….
Stupidity….”
FFS GET THE FUCK OVER YOURSELVES!
They’re as wacky and bigoted as the creationists they take the piss out of. Perhaps a little better educated, or maybe it’s just that they are better at finding the big words on Google that they like to throw around.
Most of them come over as arrogant, patronizing pricks, much like their glorious leader. But hey who am I to know? That’s only based on the opinion of the experience gained from 56 years of life on this earth, not on any “scientific method”.
They don’t “get” SD’s site. They don’t seem to understand satire, they’re also quite humourless, unless it’s some “witty” or rather witless smack down of anybody that doesn’t agree with them and who may not have benefited from Mom an Pop’s hard work (or not) to get themselves a tertiary grade education.
Quite a few of the posters at Meyers’ cult site, including Meyers himself, seem to think that the readers of SD’s blog are religious zealots.
We’re not, but we are certainly more tolerant of people’s weaknesses, be it with regards religion (nobody here actually gives a fuck really), or the fact that they allowed themselves to be scammed out of their life savings or even life by some self-proclaimed Guru, “Life Coach” or other evil scumbag.
The fuckwits are you guys who lap up Meyers’ list building strategy. (Just hand over your email address to Meyers every time you post on his site)
Give it time Meyers will start sending you emails trying to hawk an E-book (only $49.97) or DVD course (only $997). Or perhaps it will be a “retreat” in some scientifically significant place, Jodrell Bank, JFK Space Centre?
My advice though is: don’t drink the Kool aid, and keep away from sweat lodges, (although it would probably be the once “scientifically proven” shock-therapy treatment in Meyers’ case).
Mind you I have heard that Meyers’ friend Dawkins is setting up a “University” in the UK.
Of course it won’t really be a university as they have to have a charter and go through lots of bureaucratic nonsense first. But don’t worry you can still be a member for a mere £18,000 a year. But hurry up and book your place soon, it’s a time limited offer and the price is bound to go up.
Here’s a quote for Meyers fans:
“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
Do not believe in traditions simply because they have been handed down for many generations.
But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”
Siddhãrtha Gautama (Buddha)
As a layman I see very little that is unscientific in this quote.
(Sorry for the wall of text but arrogant, intolerant, bigoted, snot nosed, pseudo-intellectual dick-ends, tend to set me off in my old age)
PS @Barbara if you read this, you are my hero: Keep up the sterling research work dear. Some of the links you turn up are priceless. o>
WINNER!! ::   +9
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 2:22 am
@Alley-Cat ::
Siddhãrtha Gautama! :: hard to disagree with that fucking guy.
But I think these PZ Myers types are into a different The Prince …
Boom! Machiavelli joke … my batteries are obviously dying.
[Reply]
# 5 October 2011 at 1:12 pm

Barbara said:
PZ MYERS on fair play:
http://atheism.about.com/b/2011/02/11/vote-agnosticism-atheism-2011-readers-choice-award-for-best-atheist-blog-of-2010.htm
“Steven Mading(1)
You do realize, I hope, that PZ Myers makes it his personal mission to prove a point about how bad online polling is by asking regulars on his blog Pharyngula to stuff polls.
Sometimes they find ways to cheat the “one vote per visitor” measures, and other times they don’t even have to – just the fact that more of them are aware of the poll because he advertises it to them is enough on its own to skew the results. (He doesn’t view this as being dishonest, but as proving the point that a public online poll should never have been trusted in the first place. The selection bias of which subset of the internet’s users are even aware that the poll exists because of which sites posted linkes to it is already a huge factor throwing the results off even if people don’t find ways to cheat and vote multiple times per person.)
This is why I predict the winner will be PZ Myers and Pharyngula. His blog followers have gotten skillful at doing this, and he has posted a blog post about this very poll, so expect a sudden flood of PZ and Pharyngula supporters in the votes.”
Tom wrote:
“If you look at the votes as of 2:20 PM EST, PZ is winning by over 2,000 votes. Once again PZ has proven that online polling is simply a matter of who can stir up their hoard.”
Pachyaena(14)
“PZ Meyers is not egotistical?? Surely you jest.
He’s one of the most egotistical jerks on Earth.”
Jinx McHue
“Geez, Austin. You really aren’t familiar with PZ and his PZombies, are you? Many of his slavish, bleating followers know how to vote multiple times and PZ knows this. Seriously, think about this. PZ’s blog has a few dozen regulars. After he posted about this poll with a wink and a nudge, his votes skyrocketed from a handful to thousands. Try taking that rational, skeptical, reason-filled brain of yours and put 2 and 2 together.”
**************************************************************************
Wow, what a classy guy. He cheats to get a blogging award. He has a term he uses to tell his minions when to vote multiple times on polls or comments, he tells them to “Pharyngulate” the site.
What a bunch of wankers…
WINNER!! ::   +8
[Reply]

pelamun Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 1:25 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@Barbara,
again you’re missing the point. Online polls are notoriously vulnerable to manipulation and should not be used to determine anything of importance, let alone prizes of any kind. This is a position PZ has reiterated many times. You even had this in one of your quotes!
LOSER!! ::   -9
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 2:25 am
@pelamun ::
I like how PZ “proves” that online polls don’t work the same way the Republicans prove that the government doesn’t work.
But I know … he’s a liberal … it says so in his header so it must be true.
[Reply]

Unaspammer Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 6:04 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@Barbara,
In addition to what pelamun wrote, you might also take note that whenever PZ has been up for a prize, he has specifically asked his readers not to pharyngulate the vote. Which doesn’t mean that it doesn’t happen, but it’s not within his power to prevent it if it does.
LOSER!! ::   -10
[Reply]
# 5 October 2011 at 1:17 pm

Alley-Cat said:
@pelamun,
Ahhh I see. So because everybody else is doing it, it’s OK to encourage your FanBois to do the same thing?
I remember getting the shit beaten out of me by my parents (OK it wasn’t that bad, smacks around the legs) for using that same excuse when I was a kid… But I was a KID not a 50 odd year old professor of something…
WINNER!! ::   +10
[Reply]

pelamun Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 4:08 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@Alley-Cat,
what are you talking about? Did you even read what I wrote? Online polls are unreliable, not worth squat. PZ is not conducting any online polls, nor is he encouraging anyone to do so, on the contrary, he is discouraging people from conducting them..
LOSER!! ::   -9
[Reply]

Alley-Cat Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 4:45 pm
@pelamun,
And you didn’t read what Barbara wrote about your Führer apparently manipulating the results of online polls to get a blogging award….
Muchly debated. What do you think?   +3
[Reply]

pelamun Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 4:57 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@Alley-Cat,
I give up, you’re just being deliberately obtuse…
LOSER!! ::   -8
[Reply]

Shorty Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 5:05 pm
@pelamun, technically your point is that online polls can be manipulated which is not the same thing as being unreliable which nullifies your conclusion that they are worth squat. (Sadly my observation of the visiting “rationalists” is that they score high on the use of rhetoric, but are fuzzy on basic logic.) Online polls can be quite useful and even worthwhile when the data is not maniuplated by jerks and it is applied appropriately.
Purposely bombarding someone else’s poll to prove you are “right” about polling is immature and smacks of bullying. On the playground, this type of behavior is why other children would not want to play with you.
WINNER!! ::   +16
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 6:01 pm
@Shorty ::
Yep. And normally :: when there are no children present here :: the voting works quite elegantly with zero oversight.
[Reply]

pelamun Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 11:13 am
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@Shorty,
maybe you should retake polling 101, or did you ever hear about representative polls, and how polling companies make sure their samples are?
If you open up your poll to random strangers on the internet, then your poll will never be representative. As simple as that. If you restrict the poll to say, forum members or organisation members, then yes, the poll results will be meaningful.
Also what PZ Myers advocates is technically not manipulating, as calling a poll to the attention of the visitors of a high-traffic website such as pharyngula is not manipulation.
LOSER!! ::   -8
[Reply]

Shorty Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 11:46 am
@pelamun, let the backpedaling begin!
  +4
[Reply]

lance_baker@yahoo.com Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 5:08 am
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@pelamun, Dude, give up. You are banging your head against a wall with this lot. Asking for ridiculous things such as evidence of what they are saying is a lost cause and will get you nothing but flak and long winded explanations of why you are soooo stupid, one-eyed and incapable of seeing the truth when it’s written right there in front of you. (hey, I even got an ‘inferior’ tag from SD himself for stupidly asking for evidence!) If you track back up through this thread you’ll find a couple of my comments similar to yours, getting the treatment. Shortly after having my final comment removed by mr ‘I don’t ban anyone’ (just censor the odd comment that makes me look stupid) I gave up asking. Stop the pain and escape while you can! I’m heading off to check out Dawkins website to try to regain some sense of sanity. These guys live in a curious little world of their own and I can’t shake the feeling that half of those commenting here are merely sock puppets of the other half. But then again, I’m just a biased, Jesus hating, communist atheist who can’t see the truth when it’s staring him in the face .
LOSER!! ::   -4
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 5:34 am
@Lance Baker ::
Are you guys gonna form like a little support group for each other over here now?
Maybe you could go do that on Twitter instead … you could DM back and forth about how mean I am … maybe cry a little.
Sometimes things feel better after you cry.
[Reply]
# 5 October 2011 at 2:36 pm

Andrew said:
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Ok, here’s the deal. We atheists will stop railing against irrationalism when you religious people stop preaching to the non-religious, stop sending missions into developing countries, and stop the Mormons from knocking on my door. Good luck with that.
In regards to the Navarro thing, this site obviously has a beef with Dave and co over something that I know nothing about. That’s fine, I don’t know the details and am not in a position to comment on it. Problem is, whatever he or his have done, it doesn’t justify the things that Anthony Navarro Jr. has done, and admitted to doing on his own website. You’re trying to conflate two separate and distinct issues.
Whether Dave is a douchebag or not has nothing to do with whether Anthony is a douchebag, and it is the latter that PZ takes issue with.
LOSER!! ::   -10
[Reply]

mirele Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 4:13 pm
@Andrew,
And again, you are letting your anti-religious bias get in the way of the truth. If you can’t judge that Dave’s a douchebag (and an Internet rip-off artist) because you don’t care to dig into the evidence, but you have no problem calling Anthony a douchebag because he uses religious rhetoric, well, you’re biased.
And that’s the problem I have with you and with PZ. It doesn’t matter what the truth of the matter is–which is that Dave Navarro is selling a Internet scam, that he left his wife and kids to hook up with Naomi Dunford, who is also selling an Internet scam (to say nothing of Naomi’s lies about nonexistent “death threats.” No, your problem is that Anthony Navarro used religious language to denounce Dave’s behavior. Well, I fucking am NOT using religious language here, instead I am telling you that Dave’s a rip-off artist and he needs to get his head out of his ass and stop ripping people off. That has absolutely nothing to do with religion and everything to do with good social manners in society, as in, you don’t rip off people and sell them unusable crap.
But you and PZ don’t fucking GET IT, because to you, if it involves religion, it is automagically bad. That, sir, is absolutely fucked up thinking.
WINNER!! ::   +11
[Reply]

Andrew Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 4:30 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@mirele,
I repeat,
Dave being a douchebag does not justify Anthony being a douchebag.
My comment on religion was entirely separate from my comment on the Navarros. FWIW, my opinion of Dave is that he is indeed a douchebag, but he’s just a free to be a douchebag as his brother or anyone else.
But you and SD don’t fucking GET IT, because to you, if it involves internet marketing, it is automagically bad. That, sir, is absolutely fucked up thinking.
See what I mean about irony?
LOSER!! ::   -14
[Reply]

Wyrd Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 11:27 pm
@Andrew,
But you and SD don’t fucking GET IT, because to you, if it involves internet marketing, it is automagically bad. That, sir, is absolutely fucked up thinking.
But in this particular case, the Internet Marketing in question is fraudulent in that Dave was claiming to be an expert on something that he’s not actually an expert on!
I mean that’s just like when Kevin Tredaue tries to convince people he’s got all the special cures that “THEY” don’t want you to know about. And I know James Randi has gone after Kevin in the past.
And the thing is, you know, fraud is far more direct and prosecutable. And the direct negative consequences from said fraud are also immediately evident.
So yeah, I think it makes more sense to focus on the Internet Marketing fraud thing. Yeah.
–
Furry cows moo and decompress.
WINNER!! ::   +11
[Reply]

Alley-Cat Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 4:37 pm
@Andrew,
Well Andrew there seems to be a lot you don’t know.
While I cannot speak for the other readers of this site I am certainly NOT religious, (my “religious” education stopped 50 years ago when I was 6 and refused to go to Sunday School any more. Not on any scientific grounds of course, it was just that the lessons just interfered with my play time with my mates).
Read the other posts on this site about the Navarro saga and perhaps you will learn a lot more about why people have reacted the way they have to Meyers’ obviously ill-informed post.
Personally what pisses me off about you “rationalists” is the superiority complex you all seem to suffer from as you are so sure you are right. You are as bad as the fundamentalists and creationists you seem to despise so much. You don’t seem to realise that what you term as “free-thinking” or “skepticism” or “humanist” in the way people like Meyers express it, is as bigoted as the very people you rail against.
What you so-called rationalists seemed to lack in spades is tolerance. According to Meyers anybody who does not agree with him is stupid or a fuckwit.
Of course the problem “rationalists” have is that throughout thousands of years of history human beings have amply demonstrated that they are not and never will be “rational”. There have always been gods of one kind or another and some form of afterlife.
Personally I have no doubt that it is true when Stephen Hawking says “[Heaven] is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark”.
But I firmly believe in the right for other people to think otherwise.
WINNER!! ::   +17
[Reply]

Anonymous Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 4:53 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@Alley-Cat,
That’s fascinating, but doesn’t address my point at all. Why do you believe it’s ok for Anthony to be a douche, but not for Dave?
LOSER!! ::   -9
[Reply]

Alley-Cat Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 4:56 pm
@,
No problem, would you first like to point out to me where Andrew was a douche?
WINNER!! ::   +10
[Reply]

Alley-Cat Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 4:57 pm
@Alley-Cat,
OOPs I meant Antony :)
Freudian slip perhaps….
WINNER!! ::   +8
[Reply]

Andrew Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 5:30 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@Alley-Cat,
Yeah, Freudian slip, you just couldn’t help yourself. Very clever.
Since we’re going to be childish about this, let me clarify. I don’t think Dave is a douche. I think he is a human being with as much right to live his life as he chooses as anyone else, right or wrong. In suggesting he was a douche I was allowing the possibility that your opinion was as valid as mine. Apparently you can’t grant me the same courtesy, and so reply with name-calling and accusations.
If you want to know why I believe Anthony was a douche, it’s all on Pharyngula. If that’s too much trouble for you, here’s an example. Anthony is a douche for trying to have his brother committed under false pretenses. He lied to support his cause.
Before you point out that I have no evidence of this, let me remind you that everything online is hearsay. I’ve got as much reason to believe you and SD as I do PZ, or Dave and Anthony for that matter.
LOSER!! ::   -9

SD Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 5:56 pm
@Andrew ::
Before you point out that I have no evidence of this, let me remind you that everything online is hearsay. I’ve got as much reason to believe you and SD as I do PZ, or Dave and Anthony for that matter.
Exactly … which is why the onus is on a publisher to make sure to get the correct facts before publicly shaming a person for actions they take in their private life. You think PZ Myers prolly has a point or he wouldn’t have posted such a strongly worded diatribe … but he doesn’t. He has no fucking idea what he’s talking about … just like you. If you want to criticize Anthony any further then use your real name so that you can stand behind your words.

Alley-Cat Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 6:01 pm
@Andrew,
No seriously it was a genuine typo, but couldn’t resist the other remark.. Anyway.
From what I understand it was David that actually introduced Antony to whatever religion it was that they shared.
It appears that before David abandoned his family, he was acting so strangely (in the opinion of the family, who at the end of the day know him best) that they were concerned he was suffering from some kind of mental breakdown.
What would you or anybody else do in a situation like that?
Can you imagine how a wife or brother would feel about requesting that a loved one be committed to a mental health institution. Do you honestly believe that it is a decision they made lightly?
How do you know they were false pretenses? Is it because your glorious leader Meyers says it is so? His knowledge of the background to the story is hovering around zero.
Whether one believes that quoting bible verses is the best way to communicate with someone or not, given their shared belief system, maybe Antony felt it was the best way try to convince his brother to return home to his family. Perhaps you would have used logical argument to achieve the same thing, Antony tried to use their shared faith.
Anyway, SD has already mentioned that there is follow up to this whole sorry tale. I’d suggest you wait until you read that before you come to any conclusions.
SD’s writing style is a bit like Marmite, you either love it or hate it. What he’s never done, to my knowledge or anybody elses, is lie or misrepresent anything he’s written about.
WINNER!! ::   +10

_cartman_ Reply:
October 8th, 2011 at 1:54 pm
@Andrew,
  +1

Wyrd Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 11:35 pm
@,
You were addressing @Alley-Cat, but I’ve got an answer to your question also.
That’s fascinating, but doesn’t address my point at all. Why do you believe it’s ok for Anthony to be a douche, but not for Dave?
Me personally, I don’t think it’s ok for people to be douches. But let’s get real and just face it for a moment: everyone acts like a douche at some time or another.
Especially people who are certain that they are morally right and correct. Man, those people are the worst. Yep, those holier-than-thou fundamentalists. … And those “holier-than-thou” atheist skeptics like me (and prolly you, Anon).
So here’s the thing: if we’re all douches, then what’s the point of going after Anthony? See, ’cause I’ve never actually met. any of these people, but @SD has real, actual frickin EVIDENCE of Dave’s and Naomi’s douche-ness whereas the “evidence” that I’ve seen to date against Anthony is so far very circumstantial.
I mean, yeah true that what Anthony Navarro SENIOR did was horrific. But it isn’t clear to me at this time that Anthony Jr thought that was some great wonderful thing. That claim is in dispute.
So. There you are. I’d rather direct my pointless, indignant rage at a target that’s more deserving–Like Naomi Dunford.
–
Furry cows moo and decompress.
WINNER!! ::   +12
[Reply]
# 5 October 2011 at 3:57 pm

Andrew said:
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Ok, done my reading-up on this site. What it comes down to is you’re a curtain-twitching jerk on a crusade, and anything that gets in your way, even tangentally, is automatically consigned to the ‘Them’ column in your black and white mentality.
That aside, I’ve never seen so much irony in one place. It’s like some sort of irony event horizon. So many of these comments have nothing more to say than suggesting that anyone on the internet who shares an opinion is a facist. /facepalm
LOSER!! ::   -7
[Reply]

Shorty Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 4:42 pm
@Andrew, it’s so ironic that you see irony here, but are blind to the even greater irony that exists when you look in the mirror (not to mention PZM’s site). “Curtain-twitching jerk on a crusade” is how I’d characterize extremist atheists, not an adorable cursing robot!
WINNER!! ::   +8
[Reply]

Andrew Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 5:02 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@Shorty,
So your reply is “I know you are but what am I”?
LOSER!! ::   -9
[Reply]

Shorty Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 5:16 pm
@Andrew, it’s ok. I know it’s hard to admit your own faults and not resort to childish taunts. No worries. Just keep working at it and one day you’ll find you’ve grown up and you’ll understand the world a bit better. Hang in there kiddo!
WINNER!! ::   +13
[Reply]

Alley-Cat Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 4:54 pm
@Andrew,
LOL a fundamental atheist accusing SD of having a black and white mentality … priceless.
WINNER!! ::   +15
[Reply]
# 5 October 2011 at 4:16 pm

Andrew said:
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
As much as I’m enjoying the “discussion” I won’t be returning here, to a community that automatically censors opinions based on popularity. You people should be ashamed of yourselves. Say what you like about PZ, when posting on Pharyngula you have to be a frothing, rabid psycho of epic proportions to lose your posting priveliges, and even then your prior posts aren’t censored.
LOSER!! ::   -12
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 5:50 pm
@Andrew ::
Why should anyone but you care if you return here?
Remember when PZ Myers censored me starting with my first comment in which I shared relevant firsthand information? Cause it just happened like 5 seconds ago.
I guess I’ll c u around never {epic tears!}.
[Reply]

Unaspammer Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 10:36 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@SD,
Regarding the censorship issue, I suspect you’re mistaken or lying. You said PZ “didn’t print it”, but comments there are not held for moderation, so if it was actually deleted it should have appeared and then later disappeared again.
I’ve also seen PZ delete comments before. It takes a lot more invective than what you claim to have posted to provoke it, and there are plenty of comments on his site that are way more confrontational than that and are still there. He also normally makes a comment about deleting posts other than spam.
In short: your story stinks.
LOSER!! ::   -9
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 2:37 am
@Unaspammer ::
Before he didn’t print my comment :: he deleted a link to me that one of your usuals posted … and said never mention me again. It’s quoted above … and it’s over there still … go look smarty pants.
Note :: I really hope that you people are uneducated sycophants … and don’t represent educated class type people. Cause that would really scare me.
[Reply]

Unaspammer Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 9:49 am
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@SD,
Before he didn’t print my comment :: he deleted a link to me that one of your usuals posted … and said never mention me again. It’s quoted above … and it’s over there still … go look smarty pants.
I saw that, thanks. He said to not link to your site again, dumbass. Posters are free to discuss yous over there as much as they want.
LOSER!! ::   -9
[Reply]

Wyrd Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 10:33 am
@Andrew,
Dude, I’ve tried to comment at P.Z.’s site five times. I dunno, I musta got auto-blocked or something because none of them are showing up.
Censorship acts as kind of a barrier to that open communication thingie.
–
Furry cows moo and decompress.
  +5
[Reply]

Unaspammer Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 11:16 am
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@Wyrd,
Are you trying to post a link to here or something? That wouldn’t work since the URL is blacklisted. Otherwise, what you write doesn’t make sense to me because, as I commented before, comments are not held for moderation at Pharyngula.
Other commenters from here have successfully posted over there, which leads to me believe your failure to do so is probably technical in nature, not censorship.
LOSER!! ::   -8
[Reply]
# 5 October 2011 at 5:36 pm

Unaspammer said:
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.


Holy fucking horrific lies Batman :: let’s just break that shit down one at a time …
Anthony Jr. stalks and harasses his own brother = wrong
So, are you maintaining that letterstodavenavarro.com is fake or something? Because I actually went there and looked at it. The entire purpose of that site is harassment via public shaming.
A lot of this post is about how Dave Navarro and Naomi Dunford are such big scumbags. Maybe they are, and maybe they aren’t. I don’t know. That’s not what PZ was writing about, though.
Anthony Navarro, on the other hand, very clearly and very publicly is a scumbag. Why are you so ready to leap to the defense of somebody like that?
LOSER!! ::   -14
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 5:46 pm
@Unaspammer ::
Why are you willing to speak before you read?
So many questions …
[Reply]

Unaspammer Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 6:00 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@SD,
I already read this post and all the ones linked to it, and found nothing substantive on the topic of my question. Just a snide remark about how since Dave allegedly abandoned his children, that makes him fair game.
So will you answer my question now?
LOSER!! ::   -13
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 6:06 pm
@Unaspammer ::
Will you ask a question that’s not stupid? That’s the only kind I know how to answer … cause I’m a not-stupid question robot … it’s like a whole special thing.
[Reply]

Unaspammer Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 6:22 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@SD,
Okay, apparently childish evasiveness is the order of the day on this blog, so I guess I’ll join in. Why not write a blog post that’s not stupid? That’s the only kind I know to write good questions on.
LOSER!! ::   -12
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 6:44 pm
@Unaspammer ::
If you want to play my reindeer games :: then you should try to be better than me. Gonna be tough though … I HAZ BEEN PRACTICIN

Alley-Cat Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 6:48 pm
@Unaspammer,
Here’s a question for you
Why don’t you fuck off back to your own little circle jerk at the Meyers Fanboi site, where you can all congratulate yourselves about how oh so clever you are with your twee little quips complaining about the “chew toys” who never turned up for the party.
Weird isn’t it 96 comments and only around two from people who haven’t got their tongues stuck right up Meyers’ hole.
Could be nobody from “outside” bothered commenting as you’re all as boring as fuck.
The PZ Zombies mentioned earlier seems to be a very apt description.
WINNER!! ::   +11

Wyrd Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 11:05 pm
@Unaspammer,
Anthony Navarro, on the other hand, very clearly and very publicly is a scumbag. Why are you so ready to leap to the defense of somebody like that?
Why are you so quick to vilify him based on one religious passage and someone else’s spin of a website? I mean you don’t suppose that maybe, just maybe, your own pre-conceived biases are playing a role here?
Are you sure you’re right?
–
Furry cows moo and decompress.
WINNER!! ::   +7
[Reply]

Unaspammer Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 1:25 am
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@Wyrd,
Try reading the whole comment that you quoted from, and you’ll see my reasoning. Hint: it’s before the part that you quoted, and it has nothing to do with a religious passage or Ms. Dunford’s website.
LOSER!! ::   -12
[Reply]

_cartman_ Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 11:14 am
@Unaspammer,
He wrote it in English, he didn’t write it in a “language” of mathematics, there is no objectivity to it.
You said it yourself, “my reasoning”.
you stated…
and you’ll see my reasoning
you also stated…
The entire purpose of that site is harassment via public shaming.
Well I’ll be dumbed, if reasoning doesn’t “prove one’s point”, and allow one to talk in “absolutes”.
You use subjective interpretation of the most inefficient modality of communication available [[language]]. Language doesn’t even have the ability to transcend a generational divide [[without running into interpretational errors]], let alone a chasm so large as the interpretation of documents more then 2000 years old, or someone else’s meaning, which is predicated on personal experience.
Only Anthony Navarro can claim to know what Anthony Navarro meant. I can’t make that claim. You can’t make that claim. PZ Myers can’t make that claim. Not even Dave [[although he would be the closest to being able to]] can make that claim. That said, Dave is the only one who can claim if he felt harassed [[I have never seen such a claim from him, an important missing component in your "reasoning"]].
[["ohh no _cartman_...my interpretation of how someone else might feel is enough"...really...without any data from the subject?...how psychic of you, Unaspammer]]
Now that’s enough civility. You fucking pseudo intellects bother me, with your convoluted attempts at “logic” and “reasoning”, to “prove” a subjective point no less. Oh the fucking irony.
I’m going to go play with my ball of yarn…
WINNER!! ::   +13
[Reply]
# 5 October 2011 at 5:38 pm

Andrew said:
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
raving lunatic
didn’t explain anything
hurling invective
LOSER!! ::   -11
[Reply]

Alley-Cat Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 7:16 pm
@Andrew,
Still here?
Thought you’d left already
WINNER!! ::   +10
[Reply]

Unaspammer Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 7:27 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@Alley-Cat,
Reply not profound
next time follow the leader
take form of haiku
LOSER!! ::   -14
[Reply]

Alley-Cat Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 5:01 am
@Unaspammer,
OMG your intellectual superiority is obvious
Japanese poetic form now is it?
Try this one:
Fuck off
back to the hole
you came from.
(Swansea Council estate form)
WINNER!! ::   +10
[Reply]

Unaspammer Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 10:00 am
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@Alley-Cat,
WTF? A simple haiku counts as “intellectual superiority”? What kind of crack are you smoking and projecting on me?
Go back to Faux News and get your intellectual-bashing rocks off there, fucktard.
LOSER!! ::   -12
[Reply]

Alley-Cat Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 12:39 pm
@Unaspammer,
LoL not very bright are you?
:)
Keep trying to impress with your pseudo-”interlecshual” drivel.
It’s comical.
  +6

Alley-Cat Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 2:02 am
@Unaspammer,
I fart
in your
general direction
[Holy Grail form]
  +4

Tim the Enchanter Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 5:09 am
@Unaspammer, To Alle-Cat’s comment, I should like to add: Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries.
  +3

Alley-Cat Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 5:56 am
@Tim the Enchanter
To Alle-Cat’s comment, I should like to add: Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries.
LOL.. Unfortunately that the last bit wouldn’t fit in the haiku type thing we’ve got going on :)
By the way Haiku is the supercool (i.e. pretentious bollocks) thing to be doing while commenting on blogs these days.
  +2

Alley-Cat Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 5:05 am
@Andrew,
Remove
head
from arse
This Japanese poem shit is fun!
  +6
[Reply]
# 5 October 2011 at 7:11 pm

Unaspammer said:
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@Alley-Cat,
Aww, but I want to play here in the big kids’ playground!
Hey, want to make a friendly wager? I bet my ass-licking can get PZ off faster than yours can for SD (actually, probably not — I’m not a regular).
LOSER!! ::   -15
[Reply]
# 5 October 2011 at 7:21 pm

Bor - the first man said:
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Pfffftttt hahahaha
Look at all you dip-shits fly off the handle.
PZ: 1; Dip-shits: -3
LOSER!! ::   -15
[Reply]

what?? Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 9:23 pm
@Bor – the first man,
That’s really the best you could come up with? You were probably nervous and trying to hurry so the successful comment supplies didn’t run out. Rookie mistake.
WINNER!! ::   +8
[Reply]

Bor - the first man Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 9:30 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
What else is there to say? You idiots and your flaccid rage are hilarious.
PZ: 1; Dip-shits: -4
LOSER!! ::   -12
[Reply]

Anonymous Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 9:41 pm
@Bor – the first man,
It’s true, SD and a lot of the regular posters here are quite witty … my chuckles are scientific proof of that! But flaccid rage? That seems more the bag of a confrontationlist. If you do any legitimate research, you’d find the Droid’s rage has potentcy. Just ask Naomi Dunford!
WINNER!! ::   +11
[Reply]

Bor - the first man Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 9:59 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
I’d be remiss to not agree with you that idiots are more often than not hilarious, so thanks for giving me that opportunity.
Also, I appreciate you reciprocation of penis related adjectives. Top shelf stuff.
LOSER!! ::   -12
[Reply]

Grover Lembeck Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 9:54 pm
@Bor – the first man,
Either you don’t know how to read, or you think you’re actually posting somewhere else.
What’s PZ’s point for? Buying a BS story from a scam artist- that gets a point? Or maybe it’s for deleting the Droids comments from his blog (when the droid was simply trying to educate the man, no less?)
What Meyers did was wrong, flat out. No matter what your opinion of religion or atheism or stupid “museums”, it was wrong, and he has compounded the wrong by blatantly lying about the nature of this blog.
I think you should give him four points, really- one point for completely ignoring the whole “fact checking” thing, one point for lying, and 2 points for being incapable of actually engaging in honest debate, due to a paucity of facts on his “side”.
And maybe a bonus point for trying to help scammers.
WINNER!! ::   +13
[Reply]

Bor - the first man Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 10:04 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@Grover Lembeck,
Suggestion noted. Though I feel the reasons you gave for awarding extra points aren’t really that compelling, it seems like the margin here is not truely representitive of the reality of this situation, and so I adjusted the scoreboard accordingly
PZ: 4; Dip-shits: -5
LOSER!! ::   -13
[Reply]

Scooter Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 11:19 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@Grover Lembeck, you wrote: “Or maybe it’s for deleting the Droids comments from his blog (when the droid was simply trying to educate the man, no less?)”
This did not happen. PZ does not censor his critics like that. Your beloved droid is lying. Try it for yourself. Post your evidence. It will show up, and stay.
LOSER!! ::   -12
[Reply]

Shorty Reply:
October 5th, 2011 at 11:55 pm
@Scooter, where’s your proof SD is lying? In the original post, Salty reprints the comment he submitted. Are you claiming he never submitted that post? Can you prove that? How can you be so sure PZ Meyers didn’t censor SD? Do you have some special oversight of what he does on his blog? I didn’t think so. Maybe it’s your beloved confrontationalist who is lying. If you are truly rational, you’d have to admit that’s an equally plausible theory.
But as far as I’m concerned, PZ Meyers’ greater wrong is his inaccurate, poorly researched smear of Anthony Navarro. He blew it. He got a whiff of Jesus and his eyes rolled into the back of his head as he went on a rant devoid of critical thinking. I bet in debates a common PZ strategy is to attack underlying assumptions. Why don’t you take a critical look at the assumptions PZ made about Anthony Navarro’s views? The foundation of PZ’s post was based on a narrow paragraph quoted by an admittedly biased party. It’s shaky at best.
WINNER!! ::   +9

Scooter Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 12:25 am
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@Shorty,
Where’s SD’s proof he was censored?
“In the original post, Salty reprints the comment he submitted. Are you claiming he never submitted that post?”
No, I’m not claiming that. I saw that comment. It’s still there. All of these accusations that PZ deletes dissenting opinions are just flat wrong. Try it yourself. You won’t be silenced, as long as you try to defend your position. They actually like dissent, it keeps things interesting.
“PZ Meyers’ greater wrong is his inaccurate, poorly researched smear of Anthony Navarro.”
But the inaccurate, poorly researched smear of Dr. Myers that SD wrote is OK? Irony much?
“The foundation of PZ’s post was based on a narrow paragraph quoted by an admittedly biased party.”
PZ was quoting Anthony. But, if you read the post, you would have known that.
LOSER!! ::   -10

Dale Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 3:40 am
@Scooter,
I’ve been following along here for several years. I’d (in all seriousness) bet my 401k balance on SD’s honesty. It’s been a constant. Lying? No.
Re-read the comments here again, carefully, and follow the trail for yourself. There was most certainly some “comment modification” over there, which to me IS akin to lying.
Objectively, and all differences aside, if I had to choose one of the two blogs as the least likely to engage in censorship, it would without a doubt be this one.
WINNER!! ::   +11

Scooter Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 12:40 am
@Anyone,
Format question: Why do some comments have “reply” links, and others don’t?
  -2
[Reply]

_cartman_ Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 9:22 am
@Scooter,
The nesting only goes so many levels in, once the final level is reached no more reply links.
  +3
# 5 October 2011 at 9:03 pm

Bor - the first man said:
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
I have flaccid rage envy. Kudos salty droid.
LOSER!! ::   -12
[Reply]

Silly Dipshit Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 12:27 am
@Bor – the first man, You also have enough time on your hands to keep coming back like the rest of your pencil-dick friends, reminding us how uber-smart, confident, and secure you guys are.
Keep it up – keep on voting, anonymously commenting, and all the rest. Does tons for your camps’ fiery arguments of intellectshul supercool (yawn).
WINNER!! ::   +11
[Reply]

Scooter Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 12:50 am
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@Silly Dipshit,
Anonymously commenting? WTF? Are you saying Silly Dipshit is your real name?
LOSER!! ::   -11
[Reply]

Scooter's a Dipshit too Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 3:47 am
@Scooter, Nope – you caught me, what with all that reason you guys have. Ouch! Nothing is getting past you, huh. Noted!
Still it is pretty easy to see no one with a real, traceable personality is coming forward here to defend this pile of shit…not even you, Scooty-boots. It is only quivering, useless little shadows like you and your biggest buddy Bor, quacking-out more invisible rah-rah, clicking on the thumb icons like it matters somewhere. Excellent work.
WINNER!! ::   +12
[Reply]

Lance Baker Reply:
October 8th, 2011 at 8:31 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@Silly Dipshit, I’ve been reading through this blog on and off for a few days now and it’s suddenly registered that you lot are a group of twelve year olds! I’ve been scratching my head trying to work it out; very poorly read – check; never answering a question with actual evidence – check; throwing around lots of odd little insults relating to farts and shit – check; appalling spelling and grammar – VERY check; most counter arguments based on “well if I’m one, what are you”?! ; And best of all, extreme insecurity about your collective lack of intelligence. My choices boiled down to
a) religious folk, possibly even creationists (although in your defence some of you can almost manage a sentence longer than six words without becoming totally confused, so you may not be creationists),
b)a very small group of weirdo recluses lacking socialisation (I say this due to the fact that should someone from outside the four of five regular commenter’s here have the audacity to merely ask a question it will result in five to ten ‘minus’ ticks…strange, I’d love to know what a psychiatrist would make of that),
c) a dozen or so young boys hunched over their computers after school trying to be cool by insulting the grownups (now, if you guys are Catholic please don’t get too aroused at that image).
d) all of the above.
A big part of me wants to tick (d) but upon reflection I think I’ll go with (c). The reason I go with ‘c’? Reread my first paragraph. On a closing note, don’t be too confident about your ‘lord of the fly’s’ lil’ ole sd and your collective defence of his honour I’ve read from time to time. Let me tell you that he has sure as hell messed with some of my comments, including deleting entire comments that point out some mistake he’s made, just to make some of his dumber responses look better. I know you lot are dozy but do you really think that every person who comes here and says the same thing about your hero being a big girl’s blouse who refuses to answer any questions and deletes everything that reflects badly on him, is a liar or part of some conspiracy? Oops, there I go, I’ve used the ‘C’ word; you lot will start spinning your wheels and doing a ‘rainman’ now! Deep breaths guys, deep breaths. Quick, tick the minus! That’ll get me!
LOSER!! ::   -10
[Reply]

Shorty Reply:
October 8th, 2011 at 9:10 pm
@Lance Baker, you’re so far off the mark, I can’t help but laugh :D. I hope you feel better after your little rant. Why don’t you go run back to PZland now where you’ll be safe from having your beliefs challenged.
  +5
[Reply]

I. Ronnick Reply:
October 8th, 2011 at 9:19 pm
@Lance Baker, I didn’t even bother reading past your first sentence:
“@Silly Dipshit, I’ve been reading through this blog on and off for a few days now and it’s suddenly registered that you lot are a group of twelve year olds!”
Here’s your sentence again, start to finish, with the middle panting removed:
“@Silly Dipshit…you lot are a group of twelve year olds!”
I would certainly not accuse you of being a 12 year old, because children tend to stop talking like that by age 11.
Of course, if you’ve been reading this blog “on and off for a few days now” and all those ad hominems “suddenly registered,” well then, maybe I was just inadvertently being insensitive to someone with a genuine handicap.
  +2
[Reply]

Alley-Cat Reply:
October 9th, 2011 at 5:14 am
@I. Ronnick,
The Phartyculo site is one of the few places I’ve come across where you can have a heated discussion about the correct use of the semi-colon.
Most of them are anal and pretentious nitwits.
  +5
[Reply]

Lance Baker Reply:
October 12th, 2011 at 2:54 am
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@I. Ronnick, I think your comment sums up nicely the main content of this blog. “I didn’t even bother reading past your first sentence”. I know this hurts your brain to contemplate but I did indeed read the comments here before writing anything. I find it helps if you know what the other person is saying before you write their opinions off completely. Ahh, my ‘sin’ of calling you guys 12 year olds, I should have stuck to the obscenities and backside related insults you all seem to prefer using.
What is it with you lot and the endless accusations that anyone who disagrees with you has not actually read your comments?!
I’ll take a shot at answering that; it’s called (self) projection. Because you regularly do it yourselves you imagine everyone must do it. Here’s a hint; that’s not the case. My final comment is to point out the beauty of alley-cats comment to your reply to me. The last sentence “Most of them are anal and pretentious nitwits” is priceless . Sorry, you wouldn’t get the humour as you didn’t read my post but it fits beautifully with one of the points I wrote regarding your collective insecurity over your lack of intelligence and your collective references relating to arses.
P.s. Do any of you proof read your comments before posting? Your insult is so fragmented as to be bizarre. Having said that I do wish to thank you for pointing out what other peoples sentences look like when bits are taken out. Pointless but … well, just pointless. I’m assuming by the ‘panting’ comment that you were concerned by the length of the sentence? or what? Anyhow, if that was your concern, please stop fretting; in the real world of grown ups, people write sentences with more than six words in them. You’ll get the hang of it. Or not. Quick! tick the ‘lame’ box! That’ll get me again…
LOSER!! ::   -7
[Reply]

I. Ronnick Reply:
October 12th, 2011 at 3:16 pm
@Lance Baker, I again didn’t even bother reading past your first sentence. Who would? Then they’d need a tetanus shot.
  +4

Alley-Cat Reply:
October 12th, 2011 at 5:01 pm
@Lance Baker,
So you’re not a pretentious nitwit? There’s nothing in your last post that persuades me you aren’t.
I’d say that you’re also presumptuous. You assume that because somebody isn’t as articulate as you are, they are unintelligent, tut, tut matey.
Wow look, I managed to write without mentioning bums…
Go back to discussing the correct use of the semi-colon and capitalisation with your mates on Phartyculo. Over here we talk about things that actually affect people’s lives.
  +5
# 5 October 2011 at 9:37 pm

Becky Transsexual said:
Speaking as one of ‘the banned’, it’s kind of ironic that PZ Myers and his disciples somehow seem to consider themselves as carrying on the ideals of rationalism, the enlightenment and the French Revolution when, at the same time, he’s got one of the Cyber Bastille’s known to the Internet:)!
I probably made a mistake when, after stumbling on Pharyngula purely by accident, it took me less than a few moments to conclude that it was just another crazed far-right conspiracy hate blog and then proceeded to get myself met by the *Wrath of Thor’s Hammer* (or whatever those big, macho pharyngulites call it)? Anyway, suffice to say, they were none too-pleased at my failiure to bow down before their glorious leader.
Oh well, I guess that’s the price you pay for being skeptical of the skeptic(!)
Strange thing though is that, although PZ Myers is ever keen to flaunt the supposedly liberal/progressive cred of his site, it does pay host to an awful lot of bigotry from many of its regular posters that is, in tone and content, little different from that which can be found spewed on extremist neo-Nazi sites like Stormfront etc.
Yet those who regularly post such tosh never get banned by PZ – so long as they have the status of ‘regulars’. It’s almost as if he’s afraid that if he does so he’ll lose popularity amongst his flock. I’ve come to the conclusion that he’s prepared to ban people if it looks like it’ll gain him brownie points amongst his fans yet he’s afraid to stand up to any of the regular posters on his blog no matter how irrational, illiberal, pointless or downright incoherant their posts become.
His followers are keen to wax lyrical about how much of an eminent, hyer-intelligent, forward-thinking academic he is – yet far from being the adventurous, ground-breaking, revolutionary thinker that they constantly big him up as – the above considerations, in effect, reduce him to being something more akin to a performing circus animal in a cage who’ll jump high on command and do various other tricks so long as he’s thrown biscuits to catch in his mouth.
It seems as if this self-proclaimed ‘godless liberal’ has managed to create something of a cult around himself, too – to the extent that he’s made himself into a demi-god amongst his minions. It seems everyone wants to meet him at all those conventions where he turns wine into water or whatever and touch his garments etc. Rather bad form for someone who cites himself as the arch-enemy of all organised religion,eh?
WINNER!! ::   +16
[Reply]

Unaspammer Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 2:24 am
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@Becky Transsexual,
Hi Becky,
Whatever you do, don’t read this post.
LOSER!! ::   -13
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 3:20 am
@Unaspammer ::
No do read that … that was a classic moment.
Even though me and @Duff are fighting now about how fucking awesome Tim Brownson is or isn’t.
That sequence was also the beginning of me having Buddhist readers … which is good for mad hippie cred.
[Reply]
# 6 October 2011 at 1:43 am

Becky Transsexual said:
Ps. Sorry for the typos in that last post:)
  +4
[Reply]
# 6 October 2011 at 1:50 am

Module_One said:
What fun!
I couldn’t help but smile when I saw this post. Make no mistake about it. Myers is as much of a douchebag as those fake televangelists who take money from poor old folks. Controversial? Hells, yes. Because controversy gets people to visit his pathetic website.
I learned about him in 2008 when he thought it would be a great idea to get one of his brainwashed minions to steal the Eucharist from a Catholic parish just so he could make a big deal out of videotaping his hatred.
“Can anyone out there score me some consecrated communion wafers?” Myers wrote. “…if any of you would be willing to do what it takes to get me some, or even one, and mail it to me, I’ll show you sacrilege, gladly, and with much fanfare. I won’t be tempted to hold it hostage… but will instead treat it with profound disrespect and heinous cracker abuse, all photographed and presented here on the web.”
http://bit.ly/qCEZW1
Given my recent education here taught by The Droid, I’ve noticed a few things:
Scammers first need to convince people that they’re experts. At something. This isn’t to say all experts are scammers but in order to scam someone, you have to earn their trust. Lying, ironically, often does this.
So Myers, with all his hatred (and from what it sounds like, an inability to rise to the top as a respected scientist), decides instead to pick the low-hanging fruit and capitalize on Dawkins’ fame. It worked. So now he has a bunch of “activist atheists” just itchin’ to defend him at all costs and promote whatever the hell they’re promoting. I don’t know because I basically ignore them.
The next evolutionary step for a scammer is to then try to “monetize” his site by selling advertising for an exorbitant fee. Up next, an eBook about how you, too, can make money by selling MP3′s on the lunacy of religion! Just set up shop outside your nearest church, temple, or mosque!!
That Myers attacks Anthony Navarro for showing genuine concern and only using the Internet as the last resort to reach his hot mess of a brother only shows an even more disgusting level of douchebaggery. Dude, the brother is concerned because he cares about and loves his brother, his brother’s children and his sister-in-law. What the hell is wrong with you to find fault with that?
Oh, I forgot. Must be the fact that Anthony brought up quotes from that scary book you don’t believe in — the Bible. And how dare Anthony use something like shame (so archaic, I know..) in order to convince Dave that what he’s doing is wrong?
If anyone is the loser in this situation, Myers, it’s you. As a matter of fact, you’re just a loser in pretty much any situation, including your stupid stunts to gain more of a following.
WINNER!! ::   +24
[Reply]

Unaspammer Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 9:37 am
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@Module_One,
I love how you cracker-gate bashers are always so intent on denouncing PZ as a hater for *gasp* desecrating a cheap cracker.
Yet whenever it comes to the death threats and threats of expulsion against university student Webster Cook for the terrible crime of not swallowing a cracker, there is for some reason no denunciation of hatred at all, and everything is just peaches and kittens.
If you had actually followed Cracker-Gate, you should know that PZ desecrated the cracker to demonstrate that nothing is sacred, not even crackers, and certainly not worthy of death threats. Instead you characterize this point as “hatred”. You’re a liar.
LOSER!! ::   -12
[Reply]

Wyrd Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 11:12 am
@Unaspammer,
I love how you cracker-gate bashers are always so intent on denouncing PZ as a hater for *gasp* desecrating a cheap cracker.
wtf is “cracker-gate”? Oh I see. “cracker-gate” is your clever term for the P.Z. Myers communion wafer incident. And you assume that we are all “cracker-gate” bashers because some people on this site might not think that “cracker-gate” was cute or clever the way that you do.
Funny thing. Hate. is hate. is hate. So yeah, like P.Z. sez, “haters gotta hate.” How does that truth excuse Mr. Myers for hating on organized religion with such zeal? How come he gets a free pass to hate and yet not be decryed as a “hater”, but whenever anyone else does it about anything else, then that’s all they are: a “hater”?
The word for that phenomenon is “hypocrisy”.
And no everything is not peaches and kittens. See, I’m actually not familiar with “cracker-gate”. But two wrongs don’t make a left turn. If some student was threatened with death for not taking communion.. well first of all, I’d need to know a lot more about the situation: like was that some secular school (like the kind I’d want to attend) or was it some overtly Catholic school. Then secondly, regardless of the school, if the dude was threatened with death as you claim for not taking communion, then yes–those particular folks that did that went way, way too far and their actions are not condoned by me… for whatever that’s worth–which is exactly zilch.
But see, here’s the thing: whatever incident happened at whatever school it was with whatever student it was, no matter how it went down–that doesn’t mean it was proper, right or ok for P.Z. to get into “cracker-gate”.
There is a spectrum between being totally aquiescent to religious folks on the one extreme and being totally millitantly hostile to them on the other.
P.Z., you, and all the other supposed “free-thinkers” mindlessly banging P.Z.’s drum when he comes calling are not helping by aggressively and millitantly opposing religious people. And, since there are a whole lot more of them in the world than there are atheists, it could be argued that you’re actually making the situation worse. And since I’m a non-believer myself, that really does have an impact on me personally.
Thankfully, so far at least, the overall majority of religious folks have so far shown more decorum and discression than you or P.Z. have.
Please, please don’t respond with a dozen links to articles where terrible things happened to people in this country just for the non-crime of being an atheist. I know those things happen. It’s terrible. It needs to get better and be fixed. P.Z.’s approach is not the way. That way only leads to more polarization and extremism. Duh.
I have a feeling also that your “movement” is a lot smaller than you think it is. Again, P.Z. sez “haters gotta hate”. And on his blog he plays to that group (the “haters”) quite regularly. The fact that the hate happens to be directed towards religious folks is almost entirely incidental. The tone is really all about scoffing at the (perceived) inferior-ness of someone else’s belief system.
All extremism is bad. I guess you could say I’m an extremist about that.
–
Furry cows moo and decompress.
WINNER!! ::   +10
[Reply]

Unaspammer Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 11:33 am
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@Wyrd,
wtf is “cracker-gate”? Oh I see. “cracker-gate” is your clever term for the P.Z. Myers communion wafer incident. And you assume that we are all “cracker-gate” bashers because some people on this site might not think that “cracker-gate” was cute or clever the way that you do.
No, I assumed that Module_One, the poster I was addressing, is a cracker-gate basher, because that was exactly what he posted. Nice ego there, but not everything is about you.
Funny thing. Hate. is hate. is hate. So yeah, like P.Z. sez, “haters gotta hate.” How does that truth excuse Mr. Myers for hating on organized religion with such zeal? How come he gets a free pass to hate and yet not be decryed as a “hater”, but whenever anyone else does it about anything else, then that’s all they are: a “hater”?
Anger and derision, not hate.
And no everything is not peaches and kittens. See, I’m actually not familiar with “cracker-gate”. But two wrongs don’t make a left turn. If some student was threatened with death for not taking communion.. well first of all, I’d need to know a lot more about the situation: like was that some secular school (like the kind I’d want to attend) or was it some overtly Catholic school.
University of Central Florida. ttp://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_education_edblog/2008/07/ucf-student-who.html. Enjoy.
Also, as long as I’m linking, here’s the actual Crackergate incident, where you can read all about PZ’s “hatred”. Try to imagine his mouth foaming over when it.
But see, here’s the thing: whatever incident happened at whatever school it was with whatever student it was, no matter how it went down–that doesn’t mean it was proper, right or ok for P.Z. to get into “cracker-gate”.
It’s just a cracker. Get over it.
There is a spectrum between being totally aquiescent to religious folks on the one extreme and being totally millitantly hostile to them on the other.
Destroying a cracker is “militant”? What’s next, sitting in a chair is exercise?
P.Z., you, and all the other supposed “free-thinkers” mindlessly banging P.Z.’s drum when he comes calling are not helping by aggressively and millitantly opposing religious people.
Oh, now I’m militant too. I guess I’ll sign off now and go polish all my guns that I don’t have.
LOSER!! ::   -11
[Reply]

Lanna Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 12:06 pm
@Wyrd,
I provided a snarky backgrounder on crackergate above.
The student was kind of a douchebag. The religious zealots were religious zealots. And PZ Myers decided to stick his dick where it didn’t belong.
  +6
[Reply]

Module_One Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 11:40 am
@Unaspammer, “cracker-gate?” That’s rich.
Really, to elevate the episode to the level of a truly newsworthy event such as Watergate just shows the pathetic arrogance of your lot. You think you somehow made a dent in the beliefs of a 2000+ year old institution? Dream on.
These are the people who were singing hymns as they were being served as appetizers to lions. I’d love to see how you’d respond if Aslan was suddenly using your shin-bone as a toothpick. I highly doubt you’d do any credit to your tribe.
And liar, eh? Wow. Let me stand in silence at your superior intellect.
First, I never brought up the topic of death threats against Cook. In which case, I didn’t “lie” about anything. That angle wasn’t part of my comment.
Second, there are crack-pots all over the world and many of them are in churches. I don’t support it but the fact that Cook received death threats doesn’t excuse Myers going bat-shit over mocking what is sacred in the eyes of other people. I watched the video. It puzzled me. I wanted to say to Myers, “Why?” (If you don’t agree with someone else’s belief system, move along. It really isn’t that hard.)
But I know why Myers did it. For the “ink,” the notoriety, the web traffic — to cause all his silly followers to do a Jersey Shore fist-pump and go, “Owaaaaaa yeah!”
IOW, he’s not doing anything that hasn’t been done before by artists like Mapplethorpe and Ofili. The blueprint goes like this: Obscure and oftentimes mediocre artist suddenly catapults themselves out of cultural irrelevance by creating a (SHOCKING!) controversial piece of art. Send photos to the NYT, Salon, and NPR. Then sell the hell out of your product. Rinse. Repeat.
You know what’s wrong with you activist atheists? (Other than showing the world how ironic it is to say institutionalized religion is dangerous while banding together to form your own institution..)
You guys are completely boring. Bo. Ring.
Not a lick of creativity with any of you. You just churn out crap that’s already been done before and you expect everyone to bow to your elite asses. Except they’re not.
You sound like you’ll be the first to line up for P.Z.’s Circus O’ Atheism Fun and his upcoming frauducts. After you’ve been duped out of your money, you may appreciate The Droid’s wisdom.
Then again, maybe not. You’re already off to a bad start.
WINNER!! ::   +14
[Reply]

Unaspammer Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 12:03 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@Module_One,
These are the people who were singing hymns as they were being served as appetizers to lions. I’d love to see how you’d respond if Aslan was suddenly using your shin-bone as a toothpick. I highly doubt you’d do any credit to your tribe.
Right, people from 2000 years ago are the same people today. Good one.
First, I never brought up the topic of death threats against Cook. In which case, I didn’t “lie” about anything. That angle wasn’t part of my comment.
The lie was in mischaracterizing PZ’s motivations. The admission that you were aware of his actual point and chose to omit it only makes it worse.
Second, there are crack-pots all over the world and many of them are in churches. I don’t support it but the fact that Cook received death threats doesn’t excuse Myers going bat-shit over mocking what is sacred in the eyes of other people. I watched the video. It puzzled me. I wanted to say to Myers, “Why?” (If you don’t agree with someone else’s belief system, move along. It really isn’t that hard.)
Video? What video? PZ didn’t make a video of the cracker desecration. I suspect you’re lying again.
LOSER!! ::   -9
[Reply]

Unaspammer Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 12:20 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@Module_One,
Actually, scratch “suspect” from that last comment. I was being charitable, thinking that you were maybe talking about some video related to the incident that you forgot to link.
Then I went back and read your first post again, and you mentioned PZ “videotaping” the incident there too, so now I know you’re lying.
Really, claiming to have watched a video that doesn’t exist in order to make your point? That’s pathetic.
LOSER!! ::   -11
[Reply]

Module_One Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 12:37 pm
@Unaspammer, you really are a genius, aren’t you? I can tell because of your oh-so-smooth fisking of my comments. Wow. Not sure how I’ll manage to respond, but I’ll give it a shot.
For those who are unaware of this story, it happened three freakin’ years ago. I don’t keep anal-retentive records on the antics of your bunch, so I *thought* the video I saw was done by Myers. I was wrong. Someone else made a video of his photo, but really, who cares? Video, photo… it was Myers who said he’d show it and he did. Here’s the video I saw:
I find it hysterical that you bang on such an insignificant aspect of this conversation (harangue?) such as who created the video and good gravy, I’m such a LIAR because it actually WASN’T Myers who created the video — Seriously? Do you have any idea how small you’re looking right now?
WINNER!! ::   +11
[Reply]

Unaspammer Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 1:18 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@Module_One,
Wow, so the basis of your assessment that PZ is a hater is that three years ago you spent a minute staring at a photograph that he took while listening to elevator music?
You’re either the world’s greatest detective or a complete twit.
LOSER!! ::   -10

208-577-6210 Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 4:47 pm
@Module_One,
That’s the word! Boring. I don’t believe in God, and so I’m sometimes mildly interested when atheists or agnostics start a debate or post some of their opinions. But they always turn out to be so boring (as they are on Myer’s blog). It should be such an interesting conversation, but very few people (atheists or religious) make it so. They just scream at each other..forever, and the conversation never moves forward. From Catch-22:
“There were many principles in which Clevinger believed passionately. He was crazy.”
  +6
[Reply]

Alley-Cat Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 2:15 pm
@Unaspammer,
Strange how Meyers seems to avoid desecrating anything sacred to the Muslim world.
I don’t suppose it’s because he knows that if he did that he would have to go into hiding, like forever…
;)
WINNER!! ::   +8
[Reply]

Unaspammer Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 2:36 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@Alley-Cat,
Somebody clearly hasn’t actually read up on the incident. If they had, they might have noticed that when PZ desecrated the cracker, he also included pages from the Quran and The God Delusion for good measure.
Catholic death threats received: hundreds
Muslim death threats received: so far as I know, still waiting for one
Next time spare the fatwa-envy and do some fact-checking before you post.
LOSER!! ::   -10
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 2:45 pm
@Unaspammer ::
What is it you’re trying to accomplish here?
You want us all to love your Messiah too? Cause we’re not gonna.
This blog is on an important mission that’s got fuck all to do with anybody’s Jesus. If you want no part of that … then have no part in it.
[Reply]

Unaspammer Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 2:54 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@SD,
This blog is on an important mission that’s got fuck all to do with anybody’s Jesus. If you want no part of that … then have no part in it.
Hey, don’t look at me. You’re the one who made this thread about PZ.
I’ll leave when you ban me or I get bored of correcting mindlessly reposted drivel.
LOSER!! ::   -11

Unaspammer Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 3:17 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@SD,
You know what, I’m bored already. I’ll check back in later in case anybody wants to address me personally, but otherwise I’m done here. Later!
LOSER!! ::   -10

SD Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 3:22 pm
@Unaspammer ::
Tell your mommy we said hello.
# 6 October 2011 at 7:03 am

Gv said:
Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Albert Einstein, “Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium”, 1941
US (German-born) physicist (1879 – 1955)
WINNER!! ::   +14
[Reply]

Anonymous Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 9:31 am
@Gv, agree wholehearedly there. It’s about balance between the two. The trouble is that there are so many greedy and soulless vampires that use spirituality as a means to abuse people for money and everything else.
Some people even use atheism as a way to suck people out of their hard earned money. I like the spiders you put on the lion’s forehead and nose, as well as on PZ’s forehead, Salty. Really enjoy the symbology. Reminds me of a rotund ragdoll out of the Mormonic faith.
Never heard of this guy before reading about him here, but he sure is foolish to start jumping into the line of fire, and for what? Naomi Dumbfart??
Hopefully, Dave Navarro will be able to recover from this whole fiasco. I think that Dave may be sincerely trying to correct any wrong actions he’s done in the past and I, for one, commend you Dave Navarro for at least making a sincere effort.
We all make mistakes, and we’ve all done some majorly messed up things in life that hurt others.
If James Ray had made a sincere effort to change years ago, we would not have lost the lives that we did.
Scammers like this seek out people with severe psychological issues that are unresolved and often lingering below everyday awareness. They use emotional triggers to manipulate people, even if they have to induce trauma to do it, and to get them to do things they normally would otherwise never do.
I can’t help but think that Dave’s background was especially traumatic to him, and it is safe to say that it probably was not and still is not easy to handle and cope with on a daily basis.
Losing your mother at such an early age and through such brutal circumstances and then it’s your own father that did this – It had to have been a terrible nightmare for a kid, way too much for a young mind to handle.
Well, it doesn’t excuse any wrong doing, but at least I think people who are sincere and genuinely sorry , who want to correct their errors should be given the chance to do so.
We all need to give Dave Navarro the benefit of the doubt. No one person is 100% evil or 100% saint. Everyone’s a mixture of both to varying degrees. While most of us haven’t hurt anyone like James Ray did, we still have plenty to work on ourselves.
If we make it hard for those people who come out and want to have a genuine change of heart, then how can we ever expect this kind of stuff to change?
What do you think?
  +3
[Reply]
# 6 October 2011 at 7:07 am

Bryan Neuman said:
Wow. The PZ Myers trolls were out in full force yesterday… even the fake angry SD “supporters”. Pathetic.
WINNER!! ::   +9
[Reply]
# 6 October 2011 at 7:34 am

Last Chance To Save said:
Just in case you’re worried about missing Naomi/Dave’s latest sale on the frauduct “Online Business School for Coaches”, read this:
***
Hi there!
Just wanted to let you know that today’s your last chance to get Online Business School for Coaches at launch pricing of 50% off.
It’s on now for $197 and it’s going into the new store for $397, so if you’re into coaching and related coach-y stuff, head on over to take a look. (There are samples!)
http://ittybiz.com/obs-for-coaches-is-here/
(If you have no idea what I’m talking about or you’re new around these parts, Online Business School for Coaches is a training program that came out in the summer for coaches and hippie types, teaching how to sell your coaching, classes, and products without trying too hard or becoming a total sellout. Twenty percent of the actual course is available on the page as a sample if you want to give it a try before you buy.)
If you think you might be interested, click this pretty little link right here, or if it’s not a link for you, you can copy the url into your browser:
http://ittybiz.com/obs-for-coaches-is-here/
Talk soon!
xx
Naomi
IttyBiz | 4441 Six Forks Road, Ste. 106-343 | Raleigh, NC 27609 | USA
  +5
[Reply]

Module_One Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 1:12 pm
@Last Chance To Save, I saw how she keeps chuggin’ along. Not that any stalker/potential axe-murderer is going to keep her from making buckets of money! No sirreebob.
Five weeks and four blog posts after a “death threat,” ND manages to crawl her way out of *hiding* to make a buck. Brings a tear to the eye.
  +4
[Reply]

Wyrd Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 7:30 pm
@Last Chance To Save,
I am morbidly curious to know what @Tim Brownson would have to say about it. That is not meant to imply that I would take an endorsement from him at face value of course.
–
Furry cows moo and decompress.
  +2
[Reply]

Anna Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 8:42 pm
@Last Chance To Save, Nothing says suckess like working out of a tiny little box at the UPS Store…
UPS Store
4441 Six Forks Rd, Raleigh, NC 27609 Get directions Cross Streets: Between Lassiter Mill Rd and E Rowan St/Rowan St
http://www.theupsstore.com
  +3
[Reply]

Barbara Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 9:29 pm
@Anna,
That is so hilarious! Please, please tell me it’s located in a strip mall between a tattoo parlor and a liquor store so Naomi can do one-stop shopping.
  +6
[Reply]
# 6 October 2011 at 12:58 pm

Module_One said:
@unispammer:
Wow, so the basis of your assessment that PZ is a hater is that three years ago you spent a minute staring at a photograph that he took while listening to elevator music?
You’re either the world’s greatest detective or a complete twit.
No.
My assessment that PZ is a pathetic loser (and hater) is based on this:
That is the true power of the cracker, this silly symbol of superstition. Fortunately, Catholicism has mellowed with age — the last time a Catholic nation rose up to slaughter its non-Christian citizenry was a whole 70 years ago, after all — but the sentiment still lingers. Catholicism has been actively poisoning the minds of its practitioners with the most amazing bullshit for years, and until recently, I had no idea that a significant number of people actually believed this nonsense, or that the hatred was still simmering there, waiting for an opportunity to rise up in misplaced defense of absurdity.
All of the regular readers have seen it — thousands of mindless comments by Catholics, demanding that no harm come to a cracker. My email is melting down with swarms of insults, threats, pleas, and promises of prayers because I threatened to violate one of their holy crackers. In my years of loud and often inflammatory blogging, it is the most impressive demonstration of mass lunacy I have ever seen.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/the_great_desecration.php
“Catholicism has been actively poisoning the minds…” Hate.
“…amazing bullshit…” Hate.
“…misplaced defense of absurdity.” Mockery.
“…mindless comments by Catholics…” Mockery.
“…mass lunacy..” Mockery.
And talk about a wobbly brain. Myers bashes Christians but yet in this post claims (emphasis mine):
An honest peek into the brain of a Christian conservative
Category: Religion
Posted on: July 10, 2010 9:05 AM, by PZ Myers
In North Carolina, Christians defaced an atheist billboard. These things happen; there are always a few jerks in any movement who’ll go out and vandalize private property because they’re so sure they’re in the right that the laws don’t apply to them. Normally, the organizations and the sane people behind the movement will repudiate such actions — if it had been a Christian billboard (and there are many of those, I can tell you) that had been defaced (which I have never seen happen), I’d be deploring the action myself.
Really? Myers would condemn defacing a huge piece of plastic but doesn’t see driving a rusty nail in a “cracker” that is seen as holy by many people (and in the garbage under a greasy banana peel) as deplorable?
You follow an idiot. You deserve to fall off the cliff after he leads you over it. Good riddance.
WINNER!! ::   +10
[Reply]

Unaspammer Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 2:30 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@Module_One,
“…wobbly brain…” Hate.
See, I can pull random phrases and label them arbitrarily too!
Really? Myers would condemn defacing a huge piece of plastic but doesn’t see driving a rusty nail in a “cracker” that is seen as holy by many people (and in the garbage under a greasy banana peel) as deplorable?
The difference between a cracker and a billboard is that somebody paid hundreds of dollars for the billboard. Defacing it is vandalism. The cracker cost a few pennies and it was PZ’s own possession to do with as he pleases.
LOSER!! ::   -12
[Reply]

Shorty Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 3:24 pm
@Unaspammer, so your defense is based on value of the item and whether or not it fits in your pocket? Wrong! Vandalism of a billboard is wrong, and so is vandalism of a stolen communion wafer.
  +6
[Reply]

Unaspammer Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 6:03 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@Shorty,
First of all, they give the things away for free.
Second, we don’t actually know the provenance of the desecrated wafer. Did you know that you can buy a pack of 1000 for $10 on the internet? Of course, without the suggestion that the cracker might have been consecrated in an actual communion, nobody would have been offended, which would have defeated the purpose.
LOSER!! ::   -13
[Reply]

Shorty Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 6:16 pm
@Unaspammer, first of all market value of an item is still irrelevant so don’t hurt yourself changing your argument from a few pennies to free.
Second of all, if you are claiming that the wafer in question was purchased on the internet and was unconsecrated then great! Now we know PZ is a fraud. On the other hand, if it was in fact procurred by more nefarious methods, we confirm PZ is a thief and vandal. Either way, signs point to PZ=jerk.
WINNER!! ::   +7
[Reply]

Unaspammer Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 11:02 am
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@Shorty,
I think the real frauds are the people handing out these crackers in the first place, telling hapless suckers that they’re the body of Christ in the hopes of pulling in 10% of their income. Not to mention the countless hours lost attending sermons to continually reinforce those beliefs so that nobody will ever start to doubt and stop paying up.
Religion is the biggest and most successful scam in the history of the world.
But I guess nobody here cares about that because it’s not on the internet. Yeah, PZ only obtained a cracker under false pretenses, but he did it online, so that makes it the real WTF. Sure.
LOSER!! ::   -8

Anonymous Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 1:09 pm
@Unaspammer,
Dude, I could say the exact same thing about my husband’s fanatasy football league and men’s golf club. Except that would make me a totally self-righteous *itch and a nag. Get off your high horse. Go do something you enjoy doing and stop haranging other people for doing what they enjoy just because you don’t “get it”.
And stop being so condescending. My neighbor, the Harvard Divinity School graduate, is far from hapless, nor is he a sucker. I may not hold his same religious beliefs, but damn, that guy is freakin’ smart!
  +5

Unaspammer Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 1:36 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@Anonymous,
No, that wouldn’t make you a *itch and a nag. It would just make you a person with highly skewed perspective on things.
And stop being so condescending. My neighbor, the Harvard Divinity School graduate, is far from hapless, nor is he a sucker. I may not hold his same religious beliefs, but damn, that guy is freakin’ smart!
Sorry to disillusion you, but smart people get conned too.
LOSER!! ::   -9

Shorty Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 1:55 pm
@Unaspammer = person with a highly skewed perspective on things. Thanks for explaining that!
  +5

Chuck Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 7:33 pm
@Unaspammer said:
“I think the real frauds are the people handing out these crackers in the first place, telling hapless suckers that they’re the body of Christ in the hopes of pulling in 10% of their income. Not to mention the countless hours lost attending sermons to continually reinforce those beliefs so that nobody will ever start to doubt and stop paying up.”
What you can’t seem to grasp is this:
There are no “third parties.” There isn’t some separate non-believing group that promotes believing. Those are PARTICIPANTS that are “handing out these crackers.” In other words, believers give and receive. They are a mutually supportive collective in common agreement.
Does P.Z. Myers receive any compensation or benefit for his “preaching” to you? If he does, and you want to maintain your nonsense allegation, then YOU are guilty of the same – following your own “pied piper.”
What it boils down to is that you are trying to “save people from themselves” against their will. That is arrogant and presumptuous, and in the case of Myers, offensive and hostile. These are people who have made a choice, just as you have. You have no right to violate their exercise of that choice.
You also have no idea how disastrous the tactics and rhetoric you and P.Z. Myers employ are to your “cause,” which appears to be less about “free” thought and more about your thought “demands.”
  +5

Unaspammer Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 9:12 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@Chuck,
Naomi Dunford also believes what she preaches. If she quit her scammy little business, announced herself a prophet, went offline, and started a religious cult, would you give her a free pass, or would you continue to label her a scammer? I’m betting on the latter.
Believing in a lie is not an excuse for helping to spread it.
LOSER!! ::   -10

Unaspammer Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 9:16 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@Chuck,
I used the wrong example there. I have no idea whether Naomi believes what she preaches. Substitute “Dave Navarro” for “Naomi Dunford”.
LOSER!! ::   -10

Chuck Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 10:02 pm
@Unaspammer, You are again missing the point, or I hope that’s what it is, and not that you are just being evasive.
Those who practice religion are people who have chosen to come together to follow a collective belief. That is their primary interest. While they may welcome you to join them, their primary interest is in observing the belief of their choice.
They have every right to their beliefs. They also have every right to have a place to meet in, a web site on which to express themselves, and, if others are receptive, the right to share their beliefs with them.
> You know, the exact same rights YOU have <
The fact that you don’t believe what they believe does NOT justify your attempt to diminish or take away their rights, or the rights of others to hear them out.
Nobody is preventing you from speaking about YOUR beliefs to those who are receptive, and in fact, you have been very vocal.
The problem is, you advocate SILENCING others and preventing or inhibiting them from engaging in or sharing their beliefs.
That is intolerance, that is censorship, and that is wrong.
  +5

Chuck Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 11:26 pm
@Unaspammer, To summarize what took place:
1. Myers assisted a scammer in constructing a diversionary smokescreen, while also-
2. Attacking one of the real VICTIMS for nothing more substantial than expressing a differing belief.
What Myers did was purely self-serving. It was absolutely sloppy, lazy, and inexcusably wreckless. His closed-minded followup act was to arrogantly gloat over his deplorable non-accomplishment.
To think that any university would employ someone who would act in that way – even as a parking booth attendant – is rather amazing.
  +3

Unaspammer Reply:
October 8th, 2011 at 6:15 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@Chuck,
Those who practice religion are people who have chosen to come together to follow a collective belief. That is their primary interest. While they may welcome you to join them, their primary interest is in observing the belief of their choice.
Sure, and presumably Dave Navarro’s followers are likewise not forced into anything. They come together to follow a collective belief that they can make money online. The fact is that very few people just randomly decide to start believing in Jesus. They are taught to do so, usually from a very young age. You may call that the guidance of elders, but I call it indoctrination.
The fact that you don’t believe what they believe does NOT justify your attempt to diminish or take away their rights, or the rights of others to hear them out.
Nobody is preventing you from speaking about YOUR beliefs to those who are receptive, and in fact, you have been very vocal.
The problem is, you advocate SILENCING others and preventing or inhibiting them from engaging in or sharing their beliefs.
That is intolerance, that is censorship, and that is wrong.
I hope you enjoyed burning your straw man, because I have to take it away from you now. I do not and have not advocated silencing anybody. Anybody is free to express whatever bigoted opinions they want — and I also reserve my own right to criticize them sharply for it.
LOSER!! ::   -7

Chuck Reply:
October 8th, 2011 at 10:26 pm
@Unaspammer, There is no straw man, although it could be said you are really grasping for straws.
You are blindly committed, as is P.Z. Myers, to finding and decimating the practice of religion even if it occurs outside your normal field of vision. There’s an incredible amount of arrogance in that.
The difference between the two of you is that Myers is both a fundamentalist zealot and an asshole, and I haven’t decided that you are an asshole.
Dave’s “followers” are certainly entitled to follow whatever “beliefs” they want to have. Even if it’s dreaming about making vast amounts of money in their underwear while watching TV.
However:
1. Anthony’s religious beliefs conform to the law.
2. Dave’s business practices, according to SD, do not.
I didn’t set the rules, society did.
If you don’t like that arrangement, you could always start working on making religion a crime.
I imagine P.Z. would love to be consulted on appropriate penalties for the practice of religion, especially if there was a photographer in the room.
  +5

_cartman_ Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 2:28 pm
@Unaspammer,
nobody would have been offended, which would have defeated the purpose
Then the purpose was to offend [[your words...no interpretations]]…
That tells me all I need to know….
I’ll resume playing with my ball-o-yarn.
WINNER!! ::   +10
[Reply]

Lloyd Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 3:44 pm
@Unaspammer,
“The cracker cost a few pennies and it was PZ’s own possession to do with as he pleases.”
Myers used deception (a form of fraud) to obtain something which would have thus been intended for someone else. That moves the needle into the neighborhood of the “theft by deception” category.
The difference is that HE did not care, and you do. Enough to make excuses for the stifled inner voice you have that’s telling you “that was not right.”
You should respect that inner voice, instead of the loud, bigoted external voice that knows full well he is an asshole and revels in it.
WINNER!! ::   +12
[Reply]

Unaspammer Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 6:11 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@Lloyd,
The only bigots in the room are the ones who think it important to attack a human being in order to defend the sanctity of a cracker.
By “human being”, I don’t just mean PZ. I also mean Webster Cook. I also mean the thousands of Jews who were massacred by enraged mobs in the Middle Ages because they were merely accused of doing the same thing that PZ did.
That is the mindset that PZ opposes. That is the mindset that you validate when you denounce him for it. It is barbaric and ugly, and it deserves every bit of the scorn and derision it gets.
LOSER!! ::   -12
[Reply]

Shorty Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 6:37 pm
@Unaspammer, I know this is addressed to Lloyd, but I just have to say, wow … you are coming off as REALLY self-righteous. There are so many better things, REAL things to be indignant about. Seriously! You are starting to remind me of Linda and her delusions about how to make meaningful change in the world and that makes me feel kind of sorry for you :(
  +5
[Reply]

Unaspammer Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 11:10 am
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@Shorty,
Pot, meet kettle.
In all seriousness, I think this site is a fine thing and has a fine purpose and SD is to be commended for keeping at it. I’m not going to try to stand in the way of that.
But next time you see reports of honor killings on the news, or gay teens driven to suicide by their religious peers, just keep telling yourself that violent expression of religious moral indignation is not a “real” issue. Maybe if we all just stick our heads in the sand, these things will go away on their own. It hasn’t worked yet in recorded history, but maybe tomorrow will be the day.
LOSER!! ::   -7

Shorty Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 1:18 pm
@Unaspammer,
Ooh, burn! LOL! Sorry, but you just keep blaming religion for the shortfalls of human nature. If you can’t see that religion is as equally a source of compassion as it has been a source of intolerance, then that pretty much illustrates the depth of your ability to understand this world. Now I feel even more sorry for you :(
  +4

Wyrd Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 7:25 pm
@Unaspammer,
he difference between a cracker and a billboard is that somebody paid hundreds of dollars for the billboard. Defacing it is vandalism. The cracker cost a few pennies and it was PZ’s own possession to do with as he pleases.
Ok now I’m confused. If you can so easily cast aside the religious value of an item, why are you not willing to do the same for the monetary value of an item?
What is the underlying principle you’ve got going there? Is it that a high monetary price necessarily means high intrinsic value or worth?
–
Furry cows moo and decompress.
  +5
[Reply]
# 6 October 2011 at 2:13 pm

Barbara said:
From The Murky Waters Becoming More Clear Department:
So, Murdoch acquires NatGeo, NatGeo acquires ScienceBlogs, which hosts PZM.
Fox News and PZM…a meeting of minds.
“When National Geographic acquired ScienceBlogs a few months ago, NG executives and editors immediately faced a problem: How could they justifiably showcase PZ Myers — the marquee talent at ScienceBlogs — when Myers spends much of his time taunting and vilifying religious people?”
PZ Myers
“From Myers’ atheistic hymnal: “ Fuck God.” People of faith are “batshit insane” and “self-righteous pricks” who should “grow the fuck up.” And other nastiness which, for National Geographic, is a bit “off brand.”
http://societymatters.org/2011/09/13/pz-myers-the-one-man-brand/
This is excellent reading if issues concerning National Geographic interests you at all.
  +4
[Reply]
# 6 October 2011 at 3:42 pm

Barbara said:
From Christopher Hitchens’ book “God Is Not Great”
“When I go to the mosque, I take off my shoes. When I go to the synagogue, I cover my head…Religious faith is, precisely because we are still-evolving creatures, ineradicable. It will never die out, or at least not until we get over our fear of death, and of the dark, and of the unknown, and of each other. For this reason, I would not prohibit it even if I thought I could.”
If PZ were capable of writing like Hitchens’ he might sell a lot of books and even open a few minds.
But linking himself to Murdoch and his type of journalism gives him an audience of clones. People who are so hungry for attention of any sort that self-stimming on his blog constitutes a rewarding activity for them.
WINNER!! ::   +13
[Reply]
# 6 October 2011 at 3:54 pm

Barbara said:
Murdoch own National Geographic. Now NatGeo owns ScienceBlogs:
Statement Regarding ScienceBlogs.com
“National Geographic has assumed management of day-to-day operations for Scienceblogs.com, expanding a relationship with Seed Media Group that started when National Geographic took on ad sales responsibility for Scienceblogs.com in 2009.”
I guess a boss like Murdoch gives you carte blanche to write whatever crap you want. Look how well it worked out for The News of the World.
WINNER!! ::   +7
[Reply]
# 6 October 2011 at 4:37 pm

Barbara said:
Naomi is at it again, there’s still some venom left in those hollow teeth. On September 22 she insults hypothetical buyer “Daniel”.
“He is Eeyore and he knows it, and though he hates that attitude in himself, being Eeyore, he feels like it’s pretty much out of his control.”
“His house is very likely a mess, and he is definitely overweight.”
“Daniel will also spend on hobbies, and tends to be a little obsessed with the hobbies he picks. If Daniel were a woman of child-bearing age, he would almost definitely be a scrapbooker.”
“Keep your offers to Daniel here time-sensitive but not pressured. If you’re offering him a 50% discount for 3 days only, make it a discount you give periodically, like twice a year.”
“We’ll be talking about Crazy Auntie Vera next – what she’s like, what she’s thinking and what makes her such a psycho. We’ll also talk about what to do when Crazy Auntie Vera (also known as Your Nightmare Customer From Hell) gets her crazy on in your direction.”
***************************************************************************
My God, I never knew Naomi had such extraordinary powers! She can tell you are overweight BY YOUR EMAILS! She also sees your house is a mess! She sees you when your sleeping, she knows when your awake, she knows if you’ve been…wait, that’s Santa Claus. The only thing Santa and Naomi have in common is their pants size.
And how about that clever slam on Daniel that if he were a woman he’d be a scrapbooker? Because that’s what fat, donkey-like, lousy housekeeping, non-child abandoning women do, right Naomi? They are not clever enough to snag someone else’s husband and become internet scammers. No. They do boring shit like pasting their children’s report cards and school picture into scrapbooks. Dumb bitches.
Of course there’s also the minor fact that it’s projected that for 2011, retail sales for scrapbooking will be approximately $1.45 billion. Makes your ittybiz look pretty fucking itty, doesn’t it Naomi?
I can’t wait to hear Naomi’s clever remarks about Aunt Vera. If they are even half as insightful as her comments on Daniel and Carol they should be comedy gold. I wonder what animal Aunt Vera will be compared to? Remember-donkey has been used. Maybe a horse’s ass?
WINNER!! ::   +12
[Reply]

Module_One Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 6:24 pm
@Barbara, Bravo. Before I discovered this site, I never paid that much attention to Dunford. But wow. Breathtaking.
The condescension she has for her audience is jaw-dropping. I wonder how many of her fans realize the “Five Buyers” series is talking about them? Do they really believe they’re somehow exempt from Dunford’s quacky pseudo-psycho tactics?
Buyer personas are nothing new. In fact, I think she swiped some of her ideas from David Meerman Scott who I believe is a legitimate marketer. He talked about it in his book The New Rules of Marketing. However, I wonder how much research ND did to create her “buying personas?” They sound as if they’re the result of some scribblings on a napkin after throwing back a few.
But the elitism, the disdain, the snobbery — it’s all sickening.
I bet Aunt Vera will be compared to a leech.
WINNER!! ::   +7
[Reply]

Ex fan Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 8:05 pm
@Module_One,
Elitism and disdain – that’s so true. She’s full of shit.
She pays out everyone, and I mean everyone. She bagged Catherine Caine at sxsw a while back for writing a post that had a bit of snark. She was ‘copying her.’ she pays out the people she meets
or hangs out with. Or she’ll make arrangements to meet and then bail.
She doesn’t need a business card because everyone knows who she is. Horrible, horrible
person. And one of the reasons people are so hush hush is because they don’t want to be the next victim of the Naomi bitchslap – Barbara has been awesome at finding those.
Even those she has fucked over and ripped off won’t speak up. Naomi has con-nections and you won’t be able to guest post on copyblogger or be recommended by her friends.
WINNER!! ::   +8
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 10:38 pm
@Ex fan ::
And one of the reasons people are so hush hush is because they don’t want to be the next victim of the Naomi bitchslap
True … it’s true of most of these creeps. And the A-team will promote her knowing that she’ll keep refunds down with her ugliness … and that if there’s some sort of incident she can be counted on to pile on some unchecked venom. So the threat of the Naomi bitchslap lingers over anyone who complains about anything. She’s a lot more like Harlan Kilstein than Frank Kern.
Lil’ Miss Cash & Joy left my comments up …
http://www.cashandjoy.com/what-a-pile-of-badness/
… quite a violation of unicorn justice. But I suspects Neigh-Neigh isn’t feeling up to bitchslapping at the moment.
[Reply]

Sundog Reply:
October 8th, 2011 at 8:29 am
@Ex fan, I must have missed the Naomi bitchslap? I’ve had a hard time keeping up with so many comments. What happened?
  -3
[Reply]

Suzanne Reply:
October 8th, 2011 at 10:50 am
@Sundog, You didn’t miss a thing. Everything is all right here for you to read whenever you want. Whenever it becomes a priority, rest assured it will still be here. I’ve found the easiest way to keep up with the comments is to start at the top, and then read them sequentially.
  +4
[Reply]

Lanna Reply:
October 6th, 2011 at 8:36 pm
@Module_One,
Legitimate marketers are definitely using both buyer and brand personas, both in research and creative. There’s a Wikipedia entry on them.
I don’t think Neigh-Neigh’s done any research, because she’s doing it wrong. Personas are brand-specific and research-based; you can’t just whip up a batch of universal buyer personas. While each represents a larger customer-base, each persona is presented as an individual; Daniel can’t be a man or a woman. Buyer personas are created to better serve your best customers – to anticipate what they want. You’d never bother with a buyer persona for “Your Nightmare Customer From Hell.”
  +3
[Reply]

Module_One Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 3:31 am
@Lanna, this:
You’d never bother with a buyer persona for “Your Nightmare Customer From Hell.”
was golden. You’re absolutely right. What kind of a marketer would deliberately put out there a description of a “Nightmare Customer from Hell” to her customers? They wouldn’t. But a scammer would.
The message is loud and clear to her followers: Don’t be this customer. Or else.
Wow… way to bring unicorns and sunshine to the masses!
BTW, I wanted to thank you Lanna for posting some great links regarding the PZ craziness. I had read as many comments as I could yesterday before putting in my own two cents. You did a better job at finding the relevant connections.
But back to ND. Legitimate research is one difference between a scammer and a marketer. Tracking analytics is one thing, but actually researching your customer is quite another. It would seem Dunford wants to take short-cuts and then pass that off as “expertise.”
  +2
[Reply]

Sheila Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 6:40 am
@Module_One,
The message is loud and clear to her followers: Don’t be this customer. Or else.
Dingdingding! We have a WINNAH!
I’m guessing Crazy Aunt Vera is everybody who called her on her bullshit.
  +1
[Reply]
# 6 October 2011 at 5:06 pm

Barbara said:
Look who was Idiot of the Week on Atheist Revolution:
http://www.atheistrev.com/2011/02/idiot-of-week-pz-myers.html February 5 2011
“Not satisfied with antagonizing religious believers, PZ has decided to go after those of us who understand the meaning of atheism. We are “superficial,” and he hates us. Rather than say that he disagrees with us or that he thinks we are wrong, PZ decided to jump directly to hate.”
“Atheism does indeed refer to the absence of theistic belief. Nothing more, nothing less. That PZ has decided to hate us for stating this does not make it any less true.”
“Unlike PZ, I am not a professional atheist.”
some choice comments:
ronlawhouston: “PZ is nothing more than an attention whore who uses his atheism to give him some importance. If it weren’t for him “being” an atheist he’d be exactly what he is – some associate professor at some small time school playing with squids.”
pachyaena: “PZ is a pompous, malignant narcissist. It’s abundantly clear that he expects everyone to agree with him in every way, and if they don’t, he hates them and thinks they’re stupid. He’s obsessed with spreading hate, and as was stated above, is an attention whore. He’s really off the deep end and desperately needs some counseling. He’s doing atheists more harm than good and he makes religious zealots look sane…I’ve noticed that PZ Meyers never actually discusses anything on his blog. He issues an edict and then gets pissed if people don’t instantly get on their knees and say ‘Yes master’… It isn’t enough for people to be atheists, they have to be militant, hate spreading atheists, to satisfy the almighty PZ Meyers… It’s clear that he considers himself the GOD of atheists and that his edicts must be obediently followed, or else you’re stupid and not a true atheist.”
kevinbbg: “The more I think of PZ saying he “hates” anyone who doesn’t agree with his very specific definition of atheism the more annoyed I get. He’s sounding like an evangelical fundamentalist, only one for Atheism rather than Christianity. PZ really wants Atheism, not atheism.”
**************************************************************************
It looks as if PZ wants to be the First Pope of Atheism. His followers better build that papal throne low to the ground or install a chair lift so PZ can glide up in comfort. He had one hell of a time dismounting the toy dinosaur.
I’ll bet the creationists are still laughing at that sight, though it did end all discussion of intelligent design at the museum. No one could watch PZ’s struggles and think intelligence had any hand in that design.
WINNER!! ::   +16
[Reply]

James Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 4:30 am
@Barbara, // I’m rolling on the floor! // This was hysterical and so spot-on:
“If it weren’t for him “being” an atheist he’d be exactly what he is – some associate professor at some small time school playing with squids.”
  +5
[Reply]
# 6 October 2011 at 8:32 pm

Barbara said:
When the Naomi Dunford story broke some kind person gave links to blogs that were repeating the story. I wrote to several and didn’t have my comments published.
One woman, Janet Fraser, did at least extend the courtesy of telling me why she wouldn’t post my comment. Her reply was honest and thoughtful, I disagreed, obviously, but I was happy to have had the discussion.
I have kept attempting to post at these sites and my last comment did appear at Janet Fraser’s blog. On the other hand, her entire format has changed so maybe it doesn’t illustrate an actual change of heart, maybe she just overlooked it. But I’d like to think she’s reflected further on what is an ugly turn of events for the Navarro family.
http://janetfraser.id.au/blog/2011/08/30/death-threats-and-hate-crimes-naomi-dunford-shares/
Barbara says:
October 2, 2011 at 10:02 am
The breakup of Alison and Dave Navarro’s marriage and his subsequent desertion of his three children to go live with Naomi Dunford didn’t trouble you? Her own desertion of her three children was okay in your book? How about her writing about not paying her taxes, bragging about it…that’s ethical also?
Not to mention taking her toddler son into a sex shop, disussing her favorite pornography, and her constant use of sexual come-ons to attempt to sell her products…none of these actions of hers gave you pause?
WINNER!! ::   +9
[Reply]
# 6 October 2011 at 9:00 pm

MazeMan said:
PZ Meyers welcomes “free thinkers” and classifies himself as a liberal. All of these suggest he would classify himself as “tolerant”. To be a free thinker, you must be open to other ideas hence free thinking.
Now, to be tolerant there first must be a disagreement of some kind between two parties. The first party tolerates the other’s opposing view. If he doesn’t, then he is intolerant and only wants to hear from people that believe or perceive as he does.
It is interesting that when someone posted a link back to this blog, PZ Meyers then eschewed it as “…that saltydroid site is advocating harassment and worse. It is now on the blacklist, please don’t bother referencing it ever again. –pzm]” He merely stated his opinion while giving no solid argument for his position. Where is the discourse, the conversation, the debate and thereby tolerance demonstrated?
It appears PZ Meyers welcomes “Free Thinkers” as long as they think as he does.
WINNER!! ::   +10
[Reply]
# 6 October 2011 at 11:55 pm

ThorGoLucky said:
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Religidiocy.
LOSER!! ::   -9
[Reply]
# 7 October 2011 at 12:50 am

Hal (the original Hal) said:
Hal (the original Hal) and JGC (Part 2)
Hey there JGC,
This blog only goes so deep before the “Reply” link disappears, so I had to start a new post to answer you.
“No, I would not. What creationists do instead is to actively ignore the large body of objective evidence which opposes their articles of faith and falsifies special creation models. Henry Morris stated the creationist position explicitly in Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science , published in 1970, as “…the main reason for insisting on the universal Flood as a fact of history and as the primary vehicle for geological interpretation is that God’s Word plainly teaches it! No geologic difficulties, real or imagined, can be allowed to take precedence over the clear statements and necessary inferences of Scripture.”
You missed his point. Dr. Morris was not denying the existence of the fossil record, or any other objective evidence. He was drawing the line in the sand for the basis of his interpretation of the objective evidence.
Example:
The observable, testable existence of the Grand Canyon is irrefutable, objective evidence.
However, the statements “The Grand Canyon was formed by a little water over a long time.” and “The Grand Canyon was formed by a lot of water over a short time.” are both INTERPRETATIONS of the objective evidence based on two different worldviews.
“It is the evidence itself that is objective—it exists and may be examined. The benefit resulting from the fact that the science method employs methodologic naturalism when deriving explanatory models and theories is that only by doing so can good explanations be distinguished from bad ones (i.e., only by doing so do explanations become falsifiable.)”
You’re confusing objective evidence (see above example) with worldviews (i.e. naturalism).
“An objective statement of fact, as demonstrated by a very large body of objective evidence with regard to the fossil record and fossil transitional series, the biogeographic distribution of species, radio-isochron dating of the fossils themselves and/or the sedimentary strata in which fossil remains are found, etc.”
That is a simply a broad statement of generalities. Let’s pick one topic for now and get specific to see if the emperor has any clothes.
Here’s an objective (observable, testable, repeatable) experiment that anybody who lives near a college/university can conduct for themselves:
Walk into the campus book store and pick up a copy of the first year geology text book and look for how the age of rocks is determined. Write it down.
Go over to the palaeontology aisle and pick up a copy of the first year text book and look for how the age of fossils is determined. Write it down.
What did you find?
If you actually do this, you’ll find that young impressionable minds full of mush are taught the following:
1) The age of rocks is determined by the fossils the contain.
2) The age of fossils is determined by the rocks in which they are found.
For us ol’ folk, that thar is not realz sciencez, it’s called circular reasoning. :-)
“A question: what exactly is the equivalent biological term for the word “kind” as you’re using it here? Species? Genus? Order? That the “moths are still mouths” is an irrelevant finding, as evolution operates at all taxonomic levels and there’s no necessity for a change in genetic composition to result in a moth becoming other than a moth for that change to represent evolution. “
Any animal that can reproduce after its own kind with a common ancestor.
Wolves, Beagles, Great Danes, Poodles would all be of the same kind with a common ancestor.
Whereas horses and cows cannot produce offspring and do not have a common ancestor.
“There’s no necessary for the creation of new or additional information for a change in genetic composition to represent evolution—all that is necessary is for the frequency of expression of alleles (old or new) within a population to change over generations. That said, known mechanisms have been seen to create new genetic information (for example, as the result of gene duplication followed by subsequent chemical or energetic mutagenesis of one or more copies of the duplicated gene). “
Just so you’re clear, I agree that adaptation, selection and variation within kinds is observable, testable and repeatable. Micro-evolution is an objective fact.
Tall people, short people, fat people, skinny people, black people, white people, brown people, blonde people, blue eyed people, etc. really do exist, yet they ALL REMAIN people.
However, macro evolution (as in monkeys to man) is an interpretive BELIEF based on a worldview and is NOT an OBJECTIVE statement.
“The clotting cascade and the bacterial flagellum, for starters, both of which developed as described by gene duplication and subsequent mutation of copies of the duplicated genes. There’s also the interesting example of Flavobacterium K-172, where a point insertion mutation (a thymidine at position 99 of the sequence NYL B, if I recall correctly) created a new open reading frame that expressed a novel enzyme allowing the bacteria to digest nylon oligomers. By the absolutely most rigorous definition of “information” the bacteria’s genetic information increased by one ‘bit’—that inserted thymidine, creating not only new information but a new enzyme and a new phenotypic population.”
And yet, the bacteria remained … a bacteria.
Perhaps you want to go down the “what’s in the E. Coli is in the elephant” route. :-)
“You are conflating two different thing: biogenesis (the origin of life) and evolution (the origin of biologically diverse populations of living organisms). Evolution only addresses changes in the genetic composition over generations in populations of ALREADY living organisms which result in the biological diversity we observe today and in the fossil record. Abiogenesis–how the first living population arose—isn’t within the scope of evolutionary models. They could have arisen by purely natural emchanisms, they could have poofed into existence by magic, they could have been seeded onto the planet by aliens (as Crick and Hoyle have sometiems opined). it makes no difference to evolution, whose scope only begins with populations of living organisms already in existence.”
Ok, we can leave Biogenesis alone for now, but “seeded by aliens” just delays the inevitable question (i.e. Where did the aliens originate?).
  0
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 3:24 pm
@Hal (the original Hal) ::
Dude … not helping.
In case you’re not clear on the protocols :: we try to defeat trolls not attract them. And trying to attract an argument to a moot point is exactly what they do.
This is a very bad situation for PZ and his mindless drones :: cause I’m right and he’s wrong … and there really isn’t anything to debate. Let’s keep it like that … this isn’t ScienceBlogs … or SkepticBlog … or RedState … it’s crush the badguys blog.
[Reply]

Unaspammer Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 5:00 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@SD,
This is a very bad situation for PZ and his mindless drones :: cause I’m right and he’s wrong … and there really isn’t anything to debate.
And I’m accused of self-righteousness. You seem to have internalized the concept.
LOSER!! ::   -12
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 5:12 pm
@Unaspammer ::
Know how I know he’s wrong? Same way you could know … cause he’s a month late and it’s all right here in incredible detail … it’s just that none of his wannabe hate drones can read.
I’m surprised about that … but facts is facts.
[Reply]

Unaspammer Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 8:51 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@SD,
Apparently, neither can you. Surely at some point in the past month you have actually bothered to click over to letterstodavenavarro.com and read Anthony’s own words? You wrote:
PS :: Anthony doesn’t think his mother had it coming … which I know from talking to him {and many others} about it before I started writing. That’s how I do journalism … but I guess that’s not how things are handled on “science” blogs.
http://letterstodavenavarro.com/open-letter-to-dave-navarro:
We have seen the destructive results of adultery and the pursuit of illicit passions first hand, brother, when our mother left our family to pursue her own interests. Her pursuit was to be in another man’s bed and to give up her family and leave her first love.
It’s right there, straight from the horse’s mouth. Anthony Navarro blames his mother’s actions for her own murder.
There is plenty more like that. PZ has been widely criticized here for having quoted from Naomi Dunford’s blog, because allegedly everything there is fiction. It doesn’t matter, though. The specific words that were quoted might not have been real, but all the same sentiments are right there at “meansite1″ for everybody to see.
LOSER!! ::   -10
[Reply]

_cartman_ Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 9:14 pm
@Unaspammer,
Anthony Navarro blames his mother’s actions for her own murder.
It would appear you have problems with the nuances of the English language.
Navarro states the following…
We have seen the destructive results of adultery and the pursuit of illicit passions first hand
He is conveying a statement of facts that they both experienced, he is not indicating she deserved it.
Try again special sauce.
WINNER!! ::   +9

Unaspammer Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 9:29 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@_cartman_
I didn’t say “deserved”, I said “blamed”. There is a distinction. PZ also said “blamed”. “Deserved” was invented by SD when he wrote this post.
LOSER!! ::   -12

_cartman_ Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 9:46 pm
@Unaspammer,
I didn’t say “deserved”, I said “blamed”. There is a distinction.
Thank you special sauce. You said “blamed”, not Anthony. That is the distinction.
That was easy, most won’t fall for that cheap play , you don’t debate well special sauce.
WINNER!! ::   +8

SD Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 10:45 pm
@_cartman_ ::
Ha! Winner!
Also SpecialSauce …
“Deserved” was invented by SD when he wrote this post.
I haven’t said “deserved” on this post … or addressed the trolling about that subject at all. Know why SS?
Because you are talking about the dead of mother of people who read this page … and this page is read by other people with dead mothers … and we all here are getting pretty fucking sick of dead mothers.
But I guess since you want to talk about it so desperately :: why don’t you do so further with your real name … so that you … like shitweasel PZ Myers … put your name behind your unwarranted conclusion that Anthony “blames” his mother.

Mazeman Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 10:18 pm
@Unaspammer,
Anthony’s mother made poor choices. From poor choices can come bad consequences (notice I didn’t say always come). He points out the consequences of her bad choices (destructive results of adultery). That is far different from blaming her.
If you made a poor choice to walk down a dark alley and then got attacked, should you be blamed for the actions of the criminal(s) that attacked you? Of course not. You made a poor choice and unfortunately bad consequences resulted.
  +2

Lanna Reply:
October 8th, 2011 at 2:16 am
@Unaspammer,
I give you credit where it’s due for citing Anthony’s own website. Why do you think “destructive results of adultery” and “when our mother left our family” refer to Roseanne Navarro’s murder, though?
Why couldn’t those phrases refer to Anthony and Dave being left in Brooklyn while their mother, sister and little brother moved 1,200 miles away?
Why couldn’t they refer to the “messy custody hearings”?
Both those facts are detailed in the 1991 Sun Sentinel article SD linked to in the Letter to Two Dave Navarros post:
When Roseanne left, she took the two youngest children, Christine and Steven. The two oldest sons, Anthony and David, stayed with their father in New York.
After messy custody hearings in 1985, Navarro made his first attempt to have his wife killed, court records show.
Things went to shit for the Navarro children two years before their mother was killed, three years before their father was arrested, and before their grandmother “sent them to relatives in Sweden.”
I posit that after reading the alleged email from Anthony to Dave posted on IttyBiz and copy-and-pasted by PZ Myers, the mind is primed to read “destructive results of adultery” as victim-blaming.
  +1

stoic Reply:
October 8th, 2011 at 5:27 am
@Unaspammer,
Oh, the pitfalls of them logical leaps–particularly when trying to define the ‘sentiments’ another is trying to express in limited language.
If you read a bit more– and more widely, you might eventually discover that the only practical way to try to divine ‘sentiment’ (the feeling behind a statement, meaning, motivation) is through observing behaviour over time and then coming to a provisional conclusion.
Ain’t that the scientific way, to hold a provisional conclusion until that conclusion is disproved by better evidence?
Your dogged defence of Meyers’ untenable position, over time, shows how much you are ensnared by his rhetoric–which is not the same as actually thinking about the subject at hand.
  +4

Unaspammer Reply:
October 8th, 2011 at 7:14 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@Mazeman,
Leaving an abusive spouse is a “poor choice”? From the newspaper article:
“She told me he used to say, `Every time you run out the door, I hope you`ll be run over by a car,“` Wiksten said.
Now granted that’s hearsay, and it certainly comes from a biased source, but the fact that he had her killed certainly doesn’t give me any cause to discredit it.
@Lanna,
I give you credit where it’s due for citing Anthony’s own website. Why do you think “destructive results of adultery” and “when our mother left our family” refer to Roseanne Navarro’s murder, though?
What Anthony and Dave went through with their mother’s death must have been very traumatic. When they are reminded of that time and think back on it, what do you think is the first painful thing that pops into mind? Messy custody hearings? Or the murder of their mother? I can see your point that the letter can be read more charitably than I have done, but I don’t think that reading is justified.
@SD,
Indulge me in laying this out at length to make sure I’ve got it straight. PZ wrote (A):
So Anthony Navarro Jr. is now blaming his mother for her murder by his father, and is now perpetuating the same warped, sanctimonious idea that divorce justifies murder.
You then allegedly attempted to respond with a comment specifically addressed to PZ that ended with this (B):
PS :: Anthony doesn’t think his mother had it coming … which I know from talking to him {and many others} about it before I started writing. That’s how I do journalism … but I guess that’s not how things are handled on “science” blogs.
The second sentence makes it especially clear that this was addressed at PZ and was not a parenthetical afterthought addressed at other commenters, since of course commenters are not practicing journalism. Based on the context established, it seems clear that this comment was a denial of (A), or at least it was meant to be read as such. You are now saying (C):
I haven’t said “deserved” on this post … or addressed the trolling about that subject at all.
It’s true that you didn’t say “deserved”. You said “had it coming”, which is synonymous.
Now, either (B) was not meant as a response to (A) but was written to be read as such, which makes you intellectually dishonest; or (B) was meant as a response to (A), and you are now baldly lying in (C). Either way, I have persisted here until now in the belief that you are a fallible person with integrity who is worthy of engaging in conversation on topics like this. Now I find that you are willing to discard that integrity when it suits you in order to make your point.
So congratulations, you’ve managed to get rid of me, as I no longer see any point whatsoever in commenting further.
LOSER!! ::   -15

_cartman_ Reply:
October 8th, 2011 at 9:22 pm
@Unaspammer,
Hi special sauce. It would appear by your new vocabulary you had some help…regardless…lets try this again
Salty made a statement….
Anthony doesn’t think his mother had it coming
Salty validates that Anthony is the source of his statement….
which I know from talking to him {and many others} about it before I started writing
Salty appears to be implying “science” [[quotations would tend to indicate a neologism]] blogs did not consult any sources [[ie: PZ Meyers interpretation lacks objectivity, it's a belief; like God]]…
That’s how I do journalism … but I guess that’s not how things are handled on “science” blogs.
See, just like Sesame Street, you break down a word [[or sentence]] and tackle it a bit at the time…
Well special sauce, it was nice working with you.
WINNER!! ::   +7

Zack Reply:
October 8th, 2011 at 9:39 pm
@Unaspammer,
“Now granted that’s hearsay, and it certainly comes from a biased source, but the fact that he had her killed certainly doesn’t give me any cause to discredit it.”
1. “Now granted that’s hearsay…”:
2. “It certainly comes from a biased source…”
3. “But the [separate, only confirmed] fact that he killed her…”
4. “Certainly doesn’t give me any cause [desire] to discredit [be skeptical of] “it” (“hearsay from a biased source”).”
You laid it out pretty clearly right there.
  +6

Hal (the original Hal) Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 7:25 pm
@SD,
My intent was to demonstrate that PZ’s characterization of Anthony Navarro cannot be even slightly mitigated in the eyes of his fanboys because The Triceratops Buster was just harshly speaking “scientific truth”.
Myers is an acerbic gas bag of epic proportion that doesn’t even know the difference between real science and presuppositions.
Whereas everything I’ve read regarding the sad tale of the Navarro family indicates (to me) that Anthony is simply a man with a Christian worldview desperately reaching out to his own brother in love.
Anyway, my apologies, I respect your protocol and certainly don’t want to detract from the cause.
Carry on. :-)
  +6
[Reply]

Carol Reply:
October 7th, 2011 at 10:36 pm
@Hal (the original Hal), Your intentions are rock solid. Don’t you be offended and disappear, buster! You’re a valued voice here.
  +3
[Reply]

stoic Reply:
October 8th, 2011 at 5:56 am
@Hal (the original Hal),
Meyers and his fans are emotionally attached to the notion that they are, or can be, 100% rational beings—logical arguments always fail in the face of such emotional attachments as the attachment itself stems from fear, dread and loathing of inevitable human frailty and fallibility.
Its very seductive magical thinking–if I can convince myself that I am above all that ‘inevitable human frailty and fallibility’ then I have somehow escaped or ‘transcended’ the inevitable.
I liked your piece to unaspammer–it made me think some. The only thing that will make unaspammer think, though, will be an emotional meltdown……which will likely happen in the future as he is inescapably human and we are none of us 100% rational.
  +6
[Reply]

JGC Reply:
October 10th, 2011 at 9:07 am
@Hal (the original Hal),
. Dr. Morris was not denying the existence of the fossil record, or any other objective evidence. He was drawing the line in the sand for the basis of his interpretation of the objective evidence.”
Read Morris’ quote again: he isn’t suggesting the evidence can be interpreted differently, he’s saying the evidence must be ignored—even if he agrees its real—when it contradicts with his preferred and predetermined creationist articles of faith.
“However, the statements “The Grand Canyon was formed by a little water over a long time.” and “The Grand Canyon was formed by a lot of water over a short time.” are both INTERPRETATIONS of the objective evidence based on two different worldviews.”
>>No, they are not. The physical evidence of the grand canyon is completely inconsistent with formation by a lot of water over a long time: we know what physical features are created by catastrophic global flooding and the grand canyons features are completely incompatible with this mode of creation. They are, to the contrary, completely consistent with gradual formation through hydraulic erosion and uplift. Those arguing in support of creation as the result of “a lot of water in a short time” are again not interpreting the evidence differently but instead ignoring evidence which contradicts a preferred and predetermined religions articles of faith
“You’re confusing objective evidence (see above example) with worldviews (i.e. naturalism).”
Not at all. I agree that creationists allow their reasoning to be informed by their particular scripturally inspired worldview and therefore elect to willfully ignore any objective evidence which demonstrates that worldview isn’t accurate. That’s neither laudatory nor neutral: subjective faith and/or preferred worldviews will not serve in lieu of evidence. Should objective evidence invalidate a preferred subjective worldview the only reasonable response is to revise that worldview.
“An objective statement of fact, as demonstrated by a very large body of objective evidence with regard to the fossil record and fossil transitional series, the biogeographic distribution of species, radio-isochron dating of the fossils themselves and/or the sedimentary strata in which fossil remains are found, etc.”
“1) The age of rocks is determined by the fossils the contain.
2) The age of fossils is determined by the rocks in which they are found.
For us ol’ folk, that thar is not realz sciencez, it’s called circular reasoning. :-)”
And for the rest of us—those who’ve taken the time to actually understand how it’s done– that’s a classical creationist strawman which consitututes a false description of how fossils and geologic features are dated
What you have described is relative dating, which was developed in the early 1800′s about 100 years prior to the development of absolute dating methods (such as radio-isochron dating). Relative dating allowed for the rank-ordering of fossils in terms of sequence of appearance from older to younger. The identification of index fossils—fossils that appear in limited and specific distribution within the overall record—allowed sequences observed at widely separated geographic locations to be combined to form a coherent larger overall sequence.
Absolute dating on the other hand, based on constant rates of radioactive decay and the proportions of parent daughter isotope pairs within the rocks being dated, generates reliable numerical values for the age of fossils and geologic features without reference to the fossils themselves. The age is most frequently expressed in terms of how many millions of years old the strata and the fossils it contains is, within a known and stated margin of error.
“Any animal that can reproduce after its own kind with a common ancestor.”
It would appear to correspond to species then. I’ll point out again that evolution operates both within and across all taxonomic levels, and that change in genetic composition within a species (such as the industrial melanization observed in peppered moths) is no less evolution than a change in genetic composition producing a new reproductively isolated species from an existing ancestral one.
We have directly observed such speciation events—the creation of new species populations from existing ones. Some examples:
Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. “An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila”, Nature 23:289-292.
Mosquin, T., 1967. “Evidence for autopolyploidy in Epilobium angustifolium (Onaagraceae)”, Evolution 21:713-719
Rabe, Eric W.. Haufler, Christopher H.. Incipient polyploid speciation in the maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum; Adiantaceae)? The American Journal of Botany. V79. P701(7) June, 1992.
Gottlieb, L. D. 1973. Genetic differentiation, sympatric speciation, and the origin of a diploid species of Stephanomeria. American Journal of Botany 60(6):545-553
Solano, E., Castiglia, R., Corti M. 2007 A new chromosomal race of the house mouse, Mus musculus domesticus, in the Vulcano Island-Aeolian Archipelago, Italy Hereditas 144 (3), 75–77
There’s also an interesting example of multiple speciations occurring in populations of mus musculus domesticus occurring as the result of Robertsonian fusions altering karyotype, eported in “Chromosomes and speciation in Mus musculus domesticus”, E. Capanna, R. Castigli, Cytogenetic and Genome Research 2004;105:375-384 . Five different new species arose by descent from a common ancestral population, all reproductively isolated from one another.
“Just so you’re clear, I agree that adaptation, selection and variation within kinds is observable, testable and repeatable. Micro-evolution is an objective fact.”
That macro evolution occurs is also an objective fact. See citations above, and recall the scientific definition of macro-evolution: evolution on a species level (speciation and extinction) and at higher taxonomic classifications (appearance and disappearance of genuses, families, orders, etc.).” [ Biotech Life Sciences Dictionary]
“However, macro evolution (as in monkeys to man) is an interpretive BELIEF based on a worldview and is NOT an OBJECTIVE statement.”
First, no theory of evolution or common descent states or predicts that humans descend from monkeys but instead that human and non-human primates both descend from a common ancestral population long extinct. Second, that humans and monkeys descend from a common ancestor is not a conclusion based on subjective personal faith—i.e., from a personal belief that it is true—but a conclusion derived from a very large body of objective evidence—the fossil record and fossil transitional series, genetic and peptide homologies, conserved retroviral insertions, transposons, pseudogenes, etc.
“And yet, the bacteria remained … a bacteria.”
>>You keep saying this as if it were a meaningful observation, and as if for change in genetic composition over time to represent evolution the bacteria would have to become something other than bacteria. That quite simply is not the case.
“Ok, we can leave Biogenesis alone for now, but “seeded by aliens” just delays the inevitable question (i.e. Where did the aliens originate?).”
>>Just as “created by god” delays the inevitable question “who created god?”
  +3
[Reply]

Alley-Cat Reply:
October 10th, 2011 at 9:53 am
@JGC,
Thanks for taking the time to write all that. It was a very interesting read.
  +3
[Reply]

JGC Reply:
October 10th, 2011 at 11:22 am
@Alley-Cat,
You might also find a little more detail re: the Grand Canyon formation interesting:
An area called the Scablands in Washington state was created about 15,000 years ago when a glacial ice damn forming a lake at high elevation (Lake Missoula, at ~ 4000 feet above sea level) gave way and caused a catastrophic flood. The Scablands demonstrates what we’d expect to see if the Grand Canyon had also been created by catastrophic flooding–streamlined hills; giant ripple marks with wavelengths of 100 plus feet and heights of 30 plus feet; multiple wide canyons (called coolee canyons) with vertical walls, massive potholes, plunge pools and wide, and relatively shallow beds; a “braided” river system with anastamosing channels; coarse grained sediments including boulders and gravel on the floors of these canyons; streamlined relict islands.
We don’t find ripple marks, the relict islands, the coarse sediments, the gravel and boulders, etc. seen in the Scablands associated with the Grand Canyon. What we find instead is a single sinuous river channel, and instead of a braided river system we find tributary rivers and streams roughly perpendicular to the main canyon which are as deep as the canyon itself. Unlike tbe Scablands river systems both the Grand Canyon’s main river and tributaries exhibit major meanders. We also find the canyon is carved in consolidated sediments, not the unconsolidated sediments the Scablands coolee canyons were carved from.
In short the Grand Canyon looks exactly as it should if carved as the result of a “little water over a very long time”, and not at all as it would if carved by a “lot of water over a little time”.
  +2
[Reply]
# 7 October 2011 at 2:13 pm

Cosmic Connie said:
The other day I was all set to go on PZ’s blog and ‘splain the significance of unicorns, double colons, and so forth, but then I realized it was probably a waste of my time. Since many of his self-righteous readers are coming over here anyway — they just can’t help themselves — maybe they’ll stick around long enough to figure it all out. And maybe some of them will even figure out the real purpose of this blog, which is not to vilify their hero PZ but to keep people from losing their life savings — or their lives — at the hands of New-Wage gurus.
Speaking of which, let’s not forget that today (October 8) is the two-year anniversary of the Sedona Death Lodge. I thought it appropriate to mention here since James Arthur Ray is one of the tags on this post.
Carry on, little robot.
WINNER!! ::   +8
[Reply]

Bonnie Reply:
October 8th, 2011 at 1:39 pm
@Cosmic Connie,
It’s so unbelievable that two whole years have gone by and that narcissistic maniacal bastard is still walking free and enjoying his life while four very good people who deserved to live and have freedom have perished at his conscienceless hands, not to mention all the ones still alive but suffering physically, emotionally, and financially because of him. It’s almost a crime in itself.
  +4
[Reply]
# 8 October 2011 at 1:03 pm

Sprak said:
A blogger who advises on money…gets his math stupidly wrong.
And makes a lot of stupid remarks about someone who doesn’t.
Must be a creationist.
  -1
[Reply]

Grover Lembeck Reply:
October 10th, 2011 at 12:54 am
@Sprak,
Of course the Droid is a creationist- you think robots evolved? Someone built the droid originally.
Since he’s an R2 unit, probably someone a long time ago, living in a galaxy far, far away.
  +5
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 10th, 2011 at 2:17 am
@Grover Lembeck ::
R5 actually …
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/R5-D4
… you know how these skeptic types demand the facts … and nothing but the facts … so help them not-god.
[Reply]

Grover Lembeck Reply:
October 10th, 2011 at 2:51 am
@SD,
How embarrassing- I have thought, due to the hazy action-figure infested recollections of my youth, that you were an R2-D4 model.
My kids will never let me hear the end of it (not to say the factual correction isn’t appreciated.)
  +3
[Reply]
# 9 October 2011 at 11:47 am

unbound said:
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
So…
You proof of all these atheists making a “Hajj” to the creation museum is a video from over 2 years ago? Doesn’t exactly sound like they are making regular visits with that kind of proof…
Of course, your technique of intermingling insults into most of the paragraphs makes you sound like someone that should be taken seriously…or not…
100,000 page views per day isn’t all that much, and is about what you would expect for an Alexa rating of 38,000 to 39,000 (not sure where you got 45,000…I doubt it changed that much in less than a week). I actually manage a site that is in the 1,500 Alexa range…so, yes, I really do know what I’m talking about. 100,000 page views should translate into 10,000 to 15,000 unique visitors a day for a blog site…so definitely possible considering the following of a number of that sites bloggers.
Anthony Navarro…well, considering the vitriol and nonsense in your post overall, I don’t think I can take your word for it. And, no, referencing your own site posts over and over again doesn’t speak well for any degree of neutrality on your part either.
Oh well. I imagine you enjoy the kool-aid of your own making.
LOSER!! ::   -15
[Reply]

_cartman_ Reply:
October 9th, 2011 at 2:04 pm
@unbound,
Hi special sauce,
…what you would expect for an Alexa rating of 38,000 to 39,000 (not sure where you got 45,000…I doubt it changed that much in less than a week)
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/freethoughtblogs.com#
Alexa rating 39,898
7 day change -4,743
39,898+4,743 = 44,641
too repeat your words …..
not sure where you got 45,000…I doubt it changed that much
and….
in the 1,500 Alexa range…so, yes, I really do know what I’m talking about
Why would someone have to “doubt” when the details are readily available.
Take care special sauce.
WINNER!! ::   +8
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 10th, 2011 at 2:33 am
@_cartman_ ::
You were on a roll this weekend … they were pitching slow pitch softballs … but I still commend you.
[Reply]

_cartman_ Reply:
October 10th, 2011 at 11:58 am
@SD,
thanks dude…I felt it was more like softball-on-a-stick.
I studied the art of _cart_fu [[the art of formless form...and for $1,997 you can too]]…
[[channeling universal, employering formless form]]
[[in bar watching BL interview]]
Atheist1 – That’s superstitious nonsense, how can water become a cup, do they have any proof.
Atheist2 – [[high five]] Yeah, remember when they turned it into wine.
Atheist1 – I know, and have you checked out the grammar in the bible. It’s horrendous!
Buddhist – [[overhearing conversation]] perhaps they were being allegorical in the bible and perhaps bruce was being metaphorical and not literal?
[[Buddhist leaves room]]
Atheist1 – Did you listen to the creationist. Does he present any documentation that proves his case; NO!
Atheist2 – [[high five]] Exactly! And did you notice his grammar. Where’s the coma? Has he even heard of capitals?
[[lack of continuity detectored...get over it]]
Atheist1 – Check out the guy who’s “channeling”. It’s “the universe”, you idiot! And I won’t even touch “employering”, or “detectored”.
Atheist2 – I know! Is he like 10 years old?
Atheist2 – I’m bored! Let’s go to your place and trash some religions online.
Atheist1 – Cool, we can go to the Christian [[and RC]] blogs, and rag on their English.
Atheist2 – [[high five]] Yeah, let’s do it. Did you read the bible again?
Atheist1 – This past weekend! I don’t want to be one upped by a creationist.
Atheist2 – Life’s good not being chained to religion.
Atheist1 – You know it! It gives us more time to advance our intellectual pursuits.
[[walking home...atheist1 sneezes]]
Passerby – Bless you.
Atheist1 – [[turning back to passerby]] Stop pushing your religion on us, you creationist! [[looking at atheist2]] Can you believe that guy!
Atheist2 – I know, some people can’t fucking respect other people’s beliefs! What’s the world coming to?
[[/channeling]]
WINNER!! ::   +12
[Reply]
# 9 October 2011 at 1:33 pm

Allison said:
PZ ran off half his audience about four months ago by calling them “misogynists” for thinking it’s OK for a guy to invite a girl up to his hotel room. If he’s behaving like an ass again I’m not the slightest bit surprised. For the record I am a liberal atheist.
WINNER!! ::   +17
[Reply]

TruthOverfaith Reply:
October 10th, 2011 at 2:14 am
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@Allison, “For the record I am a liberal atheist.”
And your also a pathetic idiot who doesn’t know her ass from a hole in the ground.
Cheers!
LOSER!! ::   -19
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 10th, 2011 at 2:24 am
@TruthOverfaith ::
Good one chuckles …
But I suspects that you’re a pathetic idiot who doesn’t know “your” from “you’re” … they sound the same … but they’re actually not the same … or should I say their not the same {to make your pathetic idiot ass more comfortable}.
[Reply]

Wyrd Reply:
October 14th, 2011 at 9:51 am
@TruthOverfaith,
Yes, yes. Truth-over-faith. Yes, I agree. Truth. Over. Faith.
Sure.
It is TRUE that PZ Myers is WRONG about Anthony Navarro.
Of the two brothers, Anthony and Dave, DAVE was actually the one most passionate about religion.
It is TRUE that PZ Myers didn’t do his homework and as a result he is spreading a GROSS MISREPRESENTATION and outright LIES from the blog IttyBiz run by Naomi Dunford.
Now, in the face of these TRUTHs you have two choices:
1. Accept the new facts and change your position (ideally go tell PZ he was wrong. That’d be great.)
2. Refuse to accept the new facts.
However–if you choose not to accept the new facts, then that means…
YOU are choosing FAITH in PZ Myers OVER truth.
  +6
[Reply]
# 9 October 2011 at 5:18 pm

TruthOverfaith said:
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
And then Jesus said, “Human sacrifice!!?. What kind of Neanderthal bullshit is that? What are we, living in the fucking Stone Age!!?”
And his disciples responded, “Ummm, huh?”
LOSER!! ::   -15
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 10th, 2011 at 2:28 am
@TruthOverfaith ::
Why don’t you just go burn crosses and spare us your ignorance?
[Reply]
# 10 October 2011 at 2:11 am

Bryan Elliott said:
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Incidentally, Alexa’s traffic rankings have very little to do with actual traffic. It’s an aggregate ranking of search visibility, which should be an indicator of traffic, but is notoriously inaccurate for blogs – whose page views are driven more by subscribers than search results. Between PZ and Ed Brayton, you’ve got pretty much half of ScienceBlogs’ audience migrating to another site (and good on ‘em; they never did quite get their comment system fixed).
Meanwhile, taking ad money from woo and other assorted nonsense, for ads that are going to be immediately dismissed by a readership that is, by and large, skeptical? If it were me, I’d negotiate per-impression costs, rather than per-click or per-sale, and bask in, essentially, ethically justifiable theft.
LOSER!! ::   -7
[Reply]
# 12 October 2011 at 10:10 pm

Bryan Elliott said:
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
On to the real topic:
Realize you’re defending someone who has allowed their religious beliefs to incite him to lie about and harass his own brother – not, mind, approach in love, but pursue unwanted – and to justify his father’s murder of his mother (having an agent do it for you doesn’t ameliorate the responsibility). If you don’t find that sort of behavior and reasoning reprehensible for the obvious reasons, that’s fine.
Recognize, however: most reasonable people would likely feel justified in being revulsed at that position. You can consider that bigotry if you like, but for what it’s worth, if you do, I’d have to suppose you don’t know what bigotry is.
LOSER!! ::   -6
[Reply]

Whatevs Reply:
October 13th, 2011 at 1:54 am
@Bryan Elliott, “Realize” that you are a victim bashing, pompous tool.
“Recognize, however” you are also a bigot.
You can consider that inaccurate if you like, but for what it’s worth, if you do, I’d have to suppose you don’t know what accurate is.
Muchly debated. What do you think?   +4
[Reply]

Wyrd Reply:
October 14th, 2011 at 9:43 am
@Bryan Elliott,
But you do not have good proof of the things that you claim.
All you have is what PZ Myers had, and all that he had he got from IttyBiz. And IttyBiz is run by Naomi Dunford. Naomi is a known Internet scammer who is very personally involved with Dave Navarro and who has a strong selfish motive for spreading misrepresentations and outright falsehoods regarding Anthony Navarro. PZ, and now you, have played right into her hands. Congrats. And she clearly, grossly misrepresented the encounter between David and his brother Anthony.
The Salty Droid (Jason Jones) has actually been in contact with all of the Navarro’s–yes even Dave briefly.
Jason is in a much better position to say what is true and what is false in this situation. Check it: Actual audio clips from Alison Navarro [saltydroid.info] Dave’s wife.
Now.
YOU realize that you are defending someone who has allowed their hatred of religion to incite him to believe and spread a vicious, unfounded rumor about someone else in a manner that’s likely to cause further pain and suffering to people who have already gone through much more than anyone should have to.
You can consider that bigotry if you like, but for what it’s worth, if you do, I’d have to suppose you don’t know what bigotry is.
I think I know what bigotry is. I think jumping on the bandwagon against the alleged stereotypical “crazy religious zealot” without actually doing any damn research is an irrational action that could be handily explained as resulting from a bigoted hatred against all religious persons.
I also know what it means to be a pompous, know-it-all smart aleck. I’m aware that I butted in on a convo I wasn’t a part of. I’m aware that, that could be considered a “dick” move.
I’m also pretty damn certain that @SD’s site is a far better source for accurate information regarding online internet scams and the Navarro’s tragic story in particular than PZ Myers’ is.
From where I sit right now, I’m kind of upset with you. If you are going to talk down to people with “realize this” and “recognize that” get your damn facts straight first. That’s like How To Be a Smart Aleck Rule #1. Duh.
–
Furry cows moo and decompress.
WINNER!! ::   +11
[Reply]
# 12 October 2011 at 10:28 pm
» The Lion :: the Witch and the TrollDrones said:
[...] PZ Myers deleted a link to me :: failed to print my comment :: and after my subsequent post about how EVERYTHING he said about Anthony Navarro was amazingly wrong :: and defamatory :: and [...]
  0
# 26 October 2011 at 5:27 pm

franc said:
I wonder if PZ Myers exhibits such intellectual weakness in all areas of his life …
He’s a limp noodle with anything reality based. He’s also a professional victim with an unhealthy fascination for pudgy pink fem-bot things. Detestable world he lives in. Cut him some slack – he needs to take it out on those he perceives to be weaker. That’s what losers do, only way they can feel better you bully. Surprised he hasn’t called you a rapist or compared you to Dave Mabus.
  +6
[Reply]

Wyrd Reply:
January 23rd, 2012 at 9:21 am
@franc,
Hail fellow Erisian!
–
Furry cows moo and decompress.
  +1
[Reply]
# 22 January 2012 at 7:30 pm

Mac said:
I am an atheist and a gay man and I loath 90% of the atheist that think they represent me, suprised ? don’t be. I was raised by four generations of atheist and not one of us bashed religion.
  +4
[Reply]

Wyrd Reply:
July 21st, 2012 at 2:56 pm
@Mac,
Nah, I’m not surprised. PZ is kind of a dick it would seem. I really wish he would just stick to the science and leave the religious angle out of it.
When you say “90%” of the atheists, if you are referring to the “New Atheists” as they like to call themselves, then yeah I agree. They bug me.
The Unitarian Universalists [Wikipedia entry](highly progressive bunch) have had agnostics and atheists and other weirdos (badge of distinction not criticism) in their number for quite some time now. They don’t bash religion. They just try to do stuff to promote the social good. Of course they’re almost all liberals so sometimes their idea of a social good might not be the same as someone else’s. *shrug* But I think they’re cool.
–
Furry cows moo and decompress.
  +1
[Reply]

Lanna Reply:
July 21st, 2012 at 4:42 pm
@Wyrd,
Fanatical unbelief is just as dumb as fanatical belief.
The UUs sound pretty cool.
  +1
[Reply]
# 21 July 2012 at 1:29 pm

jimbo jones said:
I know this is old as hell. But I want you people to know, PZ is well hated by many many people in the atheist and skeptic community. He is a dickwad with little regard for truth, honesty or rigor. His followers are ideologues and the behaviour he has shown is very common in occurrence.
  +5
[Reply]

Wyrd Reply:
February 15th, 2013 at 10:26 am
@jimbo jones,
I know this is old as hell. But I want you people to know, PZ is well hated by many many people in the atheist and skeptic community.
Yeah. I’ve seen that sometimes.
He is a dickwad with little regard for truth, honesty or rigor. His followers are ideologues and the behaviour he has shown is very common in occurrence.
Yeah. This incident that happened here was a perfect example of that.
The dude should just stick with the dino-research. Because that’s all science-y and stuff.
SCIENCE == GOOD
BIGOTRY == BAD.
(
Also–satire and humor equal good. There’s plenty of fertile ground in the many religions of the world for satirizing. But P.Z. doesn’t do satire, he just does knee-jerk belittlement and hate-speech of specific individual people who he thinks believe differently than he does based on stereotypes.
As Salty Droid pointed out, this is bigotry. In fact it’s like the exact definition.
)
  +1
[Reply]

pigs trotters Reply:
February 17th, 2013 at 9:23 am
@Wyrd,
Exact definition of Myers is ‘demagogue’
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogue
=dangerous type whatever ideology they are promoting, as they exploit the major structural weakness in a democratic system, because as the elitist Winston Churchill noted:
” The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.”
  0
[Reply]
# 15 February 2013 at 3:55 am

Wyrd said:
Interesting (kinda) development.
P.Z. Myers divorces himself from the “skeptic movement”
And nobody cares.
http://www.saramayhew.com/blog/index.php/2013/05/pz-myers-divorces-skepticism/
–
Furry cows moo and decompress.
  +2
[Reply]

shii Reply:
May 13th, 2013 at 9:49 pm
@Wyrd, I’ve tried to add a link to this post to RationalWiki a few times, and they always remove it in a fit of snarling.
Evidently someone still cares.
  +4
[Reply]

Wyrd Reply:
May 13th, 2013 at 10:52 pm
@shii,
Yeah. PZ is apparently claiming (now) that they Very Just Reason to not allow links to saltydroid.info is that it’s all full of viruses or something. I don’t buy it. I’ve been here oodles of times on many computers and a few different browsers and at least two operating systems. Three if you count Win XP and Win 7 as different. Never once a virusy thing. Heck, by SD’s nature, there’s not even any banner ads! Hard to see how the virus/trojan claim makes any sense at all.
My opinion? They (or at least PZ) can’t handle the simple truth that he was wrong. Wrong about what this site is and wrong about A. N. Jr. So now it’s all cognitive dissonance and ostrich-in-sand-ism all the way.
–
Furry cows moo and decompress.
  +3
[Reply]

BFD Reply:
May 14th, 2013 at 2:35 am
@shii,
Actually, you’ll find the RationalWiki is nothing of the sort (as in “rational”, if it ever was). It is yet another hotbed of ideological losers very much of the same sort as FTB/Pharyngula. They do not tolerate any opinions or information that deviates from sacred orthodoxy. This catches them red handed and I think there are a few more posts on it -
http://greylining.com/2012/08/20/rationalwiki-overrun-by-baboons/
  +2
[Reply]

Lanna Reply:
May 14th, 2013 at 6:06 am
@BFD,
Jeez, I didn’t even know the skeptic community existed until I read about PZ here (kind of like how I didn’t even know the pickup-artist community existed until I read about it here), but I sure am glad I get to pick and choose my own mishmash of ideas and beliefs and change them later on if they turn out to be wrong instead of having to follow a strict system of nonbelief or else be ostracized.
  +1
[Reply]
# 5 May 2013 at 3:20 pm

Say Something!

{ commentators }